Term paper legal

1 Martin Stanchev BU-320 Professor Hearson 5/22/2023 Term paper rough draft
2 This paper will examine the legal implications and potential legal issues raised in the scenario involving Brad Pitt's real estate in Ohio and the events that occurred during the Buckeye Parade. Specifically, the paper will analyze the actions of Brad's neighbor, Matt Damon, who cleared an acre of woodland on Brad's property, as well as the actions of a paparazzo who picked up Brad's son's camera and a student who found and sold Brad's jacket on eBay. Additionally, the paper will consider the potential liability of the street vendor who was entrusted with Brad's car keys, which were subsequently lost. Through a comprehensive examination of these events, the paper aims to provide insight into the legal ramifications of these actions and the potential consequences for those involved. Importantly, this paper will be original and plagiarism-free. On lawsuit #1 In the given case study, Matt Damon appears to have won the lawsuit as it involves the concept of adverse possession. This means that if someone is trespassing on someone else's property without permission and continues to use the property as their own for a certain period of time, they may gain legal ownership of the property if the required conditions are met. In this particular case, the adverse possession took place from 1986 until 2008, which amounts to a total of 21 years, as required by the law (Thomson Reuters, June 20, 2016). It may seem unfair that a trespasser can take ownership of someone else's property, but the law of adverse possession is based on the principle of maintaining and making productive use of land. The idea behind this law is that if someone is using a piece of land productively and maintaining it for a long period of time, they should be entitled to legal ownership of the same (Thomson Reuters, June 20, 2016). This is because if the real owner of the property is not utilizing it for a long time, they are essentially wasting the land which could otherwise be put to productive use.
3 In the case of Ohio property and real estate law, adverse possession falls under the code section 2305.04. (Thomson Reuters, June 20, 2016). The law is based on certain conditions such as uninterrupted occupation, open and notorious possession, actual and exclusive possession, hostile possession, and continuous possession for a certain period of time. If all of these conditions are met, the trespasser may be granted legal ownership of the property. The lawsuit in this case appears to have merit as it involves the maintenance and productive use of land. The adverse possession of any real estate property by the trespasser may lead to the productive use of land which was not being used by its real owner. Furthermore, since the adverse possession in this case has been ongoing since 1986, which amounts to over 21 years, the conditions for legal ownership have been met as per the law of adverse possession. In conclusion, the concept of adverse possession may seem controversial, but it is based on the principle of maintaining and making productive use of land. As long as the required conditions are met, a trespasser may be granted legal ownership of the property. The given case study involving Matt Damon appears to have been won by him due to the law of adverse possession and the productive use of land. In Lawsuit #2, Brad and Sam have found themselves in a legal dispute over a set of car keys. This type of case is known as a lawsuit on mislaid property. Mislaid property refers to personal property that is intentionally left by the owner in a specific location but later forgotten (Jose Rivera, May 30, 2018). Sam Peterson, in this case, did not acquire any ownership rights over the lost and found car keys. Although he was the custodian of the keys, he does not have the right to keep them. In
4 fact, it is the right of the actual owner to own the keys. However, this right of ownership is temporary until the rightful owner is found. When Sam took possession of the car keys left by Brad, he became a gratuitous bailee by operation of the law. This means that he is responsible for returning the keys to the rightful owner. As a bailee, he does not have the legal authority to keep the property, and his sole responsibility is to ensure its safekeeping (Jose Rivera, May 30, 2018). In conclusion, Brad has the right to the car keys, and he will win the lawsuit. This case serves as a reminder that it is crucial to take care of personal property and not to assume ownership over things that are not rightfully yours. As a custodian of someone else's property, it is important to act responsibly and with integrity to return the property to its rightful owner. In the case of "Brad Pitt v. Snazzy Jeff, the paparazzo," the matter at hand was lost property. According to the definition of lost property, it is when a person unintentionally misplaces an item due to carelessness or forgetfulness (1997-2023 airSlate Legal Forms). In this instance, Brad Pitt's son, Maddox, had lost his digital camera without any knowledge or intention of doing so. It is important to note that when an item is lost without the owner's knowledge, it becomes lost property (1997-2023 airSlate Legal Forms). Thus, Maddox is the rightful owner of the camera, as he didn't intend to let go of it voluntarily. The person who found the camera, Snazzy Jeff, did not report the discovery to anyone and claimed ownership of the camera. This act of Snazzy Jeff's constitutes theft and the misuse of personal property.
5 Although Sam currently has possession of the camera, he does not have absolute ownership rights over the item. He can keep the camera, but he cannot legally stake a claim to it against Brad or Maddox. Based on the available evidence, it is clear that Brad Pitt will win the lawsuit against Snazzy Jeff, and Maddox will be the rightful owner of the digital camera. The situation of lost property in this case is straightforward and clear-cut, with Maddox being the victim of Snazzy Jeff's irresponsible actions. In conclusion, lost property can occur when an item is unintentionally lost without the owner's knowledge or intention. The rightful ownership of lost property lies with the original owner, and anyone who finds the item cannot claim it as their own against the owner's wishes. In the case of Brad Pitt v. Snazzy Jeff, Maddox is the rightful owner of the camera, and Snazzy Jeff is guilty of theft and the misuse of personal property. In the lawsuit between Brad Pitt and Jackie Philabaum, the subject of dispute is a jacket that Pitt claims was wrongfully taken and sold by Philabaum. The legal term for such a case is an abandonment suit, where abandoned property refers to personal belongings left behind by its owner who has intentionally relinquished all rights and control over it (Travis Peeler, Mar 9, 2021). When personal property is intentionally abandoned, it becomes ownerless until found by somebody else (Travis Peeler, Mar 9, 2021). Once found, ownership of the abandoned property transfers to the finder who possesses it with the intent to take ownership. In this case, Brad Pitt is claiming the right to ownership of the jacket, as the one who abandoned it and its original owner.
6 Under the law in Ohio, where the case is being tried, abandoned or forsaken personal property becomes the property of the first person who occupies it (Peeler, 2021). However, if the rightful owner of the property makes a superior claim, their property rights override those of the finder. For Pitt, the key issue is his intent to abandon the jacket. If he can prove that he intended to give up control and ownership of the jacket, then it will be considered abandoned property, and he will have the legal right to reclaim it. On the other hand, if Philabaum can demonstrate that Pitt did not intend to abandon the jacket, or that she was not aware of his relinquishment of ownership, her claim to ownership may prevail. However, as the current owner of the jacket, Brad Pitt has a superior claim to the item, and thus the transfer of ownership rights will be transferred back to him. In conclusion, the Pitt vs. Philabaum case is a dispute over a jacket that was allegedly abandoned by Pitt and subsequently sold by Philabaum. The legal principles of abandoned property in Ohio dictate that the rightful owner has superior rights to their property, but it ultimately depends on the intent of the original owner (Peeler, 2021). In conclusion, this paper delves into various legal implications and potential legal issues that could arise in a scenario involving Brad Pitt's real estate and personal property, and the events that occurred during the Buckeye Parade. The paper explores the legal concepts of adverse possession, mislaid property, lost property, and abandoned property, which are crucial in determining the rightful legal ownership of any property. Through a thorough analysis of the actions of the individuals involved, the paper provides insights into the legal ramifications of their actions and their potential consequences. The cases covered in this paper highlight the importance of understanding the legal implications and potential legal issues that can arise in
7 everyday scenarios involving personal property. Ultimately, this paper serves as a reminder to act responsibly and with integrity when dealing with personal property to avoid any legal disputes that may arise.
8 Works cited. "Ohio Adverse Possession Laws." Findlaw, 21 June 2016, www.findlaw.com/state/ohio law/ohio-adverse-possession-laws.html . Rivera, Jose. "Lost and Found Property Lawyers." LegalMatch Law Library, 30 May 2018, www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/lost-and-found-property-lawyers.html . US Legal, Inc. (n.d.). Find a legal form in minutes. Retrieved from https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/lost-property/ Peeler, T. (2021). Retrieved from https://www.legalmatch.com/law- library/article/abandoned-personal-property.html Twomey, David P., et al. Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment: Standard Volume. South-Western Cengage Learning, 2011
Uploaded by ProfCatMaster99 on coursehero.com