Deck 21: Personal Property and Bailments

Question 1

Can a creditor of both the husband and wife under the same obligation obtain an execution against a Winnebago mobile home owned by the husband and wife in tenancy by entirety?

Answer 1

A property can be held either by a single person, or more than one person. When a property is held by a single person, it is known as severalty ; whereas, when it is held by two or more persons it is known as cotenancy. 'Tenancy by entirety' is a type of cotenancy, where a property was transferred to both wife and husband.
As mentioned above, in case of ' tenancy by entirety ', a property belongs to both the wife and husband. Furthermore, in tenancy by entirety, interest of a spouse cannot be transferred to a third party. However, some jurisdictions allow the right of a spouse to share the possession and profit.
As per common law jurisdiction, creditor of one of the spouses cannot claim the property which is being held under 'tenancy by entirety', when both the persons are living. Only after the death of a spouse, the property can be claimed by the creditor. However, if both the spouses are under the same obligation to a creditor, then the creditor can obtain execution against that particular property.
In the given case, both husband and wife own the W mobile home under tenancy by entirety. Furthermore, it is also mentioned that both the husband and wife are under the same obligation to the creditor. Since, all the given circumstances allow the creditor to claim for the property held by both the spouses. Therefore, the creditor can successfully obtain the execution. It would not be the case, if only one of the spouses, i.e., either the husband or the wife was under the obligation of the creditor.
Hence, it is concluded that the creditor of both husband and wife can obtain an execution against the W mobile home.

Question 2

Joe obtained a box of antique Lenox china dishes that had been left at the Mashpee town dump. He supplemented the sizable but incomplete set of dishes with other Lenox pieces found at antique dealers. At dinner parties, he proudly told of the origin of his china. When Marlene discovered that Joe had taken her dishes from the dump, she hired an attorney to obtain their return. What result?

Answer 2

M relinquished her title (ownership) of plates by dumping it in a trash site. Hence, the plates are now "finders keepers" that is title is given to whoever finds these plates. M will have to argue that she had no intention of abandoning it, retaining title, e.g. maybe she dumped the plates when running away from a thief. But absent such evidence the plates are transferred to the new owner.

Question 3

Joyce Clifford gave a check for $5,000 to her nephew Carl to help with living expenses for his last year of college. The face of the check stated, "As a loan." Years later, Carl wrote to his aunt asking what he should do about the loan. She responded on her Christmas card simply, "On money-keep it-no return." After Joyce's death, her administrator sued Carl after discovering the "As a loan" canceled check. Decide.

Answer 3

C received a check in form of a loan from an aunt. After some time the aunt wrote on a Christmas card that states to keep the money with no return. C may argue against her estate, wanting payment for the loan, that the Christmas card sent by his aunt is a gift of forgiveness of the check loan. However, the Christmas card is very vague and doesn't mention the amount of money, it could have been other money that C 's aunt gave him besides the check. In that case, C may still be liable for the loan. In hindsight C should have requested a detailed writing from his aunt for loan forgiveness.

Question 4

Ruth and Stella were sisters. They owned a house as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Ruth sold her half interest to Roy. Thereafter, Stella died, and Roy claimed the entire property by survivorship. Was he entitled to it?

Question 5

Mona found a wallet on the floor of an elevator in the office building where she worked. She posted several notices in the building about finding the wallet, but no one appeared to claim it. She waited for six months and then spent the money in the wallet in the belief that she owned it. Jason, the person who lost the wallet, subsequently brought suit to recover the money. Mona's defense was that the money was hers because Jason did not claim it within a reasonable time after she posted the notices. Is she correct? (Assume that the common law applies.)

Question 6

In 1971, Harry Gordon turned over $40,000 to his son, Murray Gordon. Murray opened two $20,000 custodial bank accounts under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act for his minor children, Eden and Alexander. Murray was listed as the custodian of both accounts. On January 9, 1976, both accounts were closed, and a single bank check representing the principal of the accounts was drawn to the order of Harry Gordon. In April 1976, Murray and his wife, Joan, entered into a separation agreement and were later divorced. Thereafter, Joan, on behalf of her children, Eden and Alexander, brought suit against Murray to recover the funds withdrawn in January 1976, contending that the deposits in both accounts were irrevocable gifts. Murray contended that the money was his father's and that it was never intended as a gift but was merely a means of avoiding taxes. Decide. [Gordon v Gordon 419 NYS2d 684 (App Div)]

Question 7

New York's banking law provides that a presumption arises that a joint tenancy has been created when a bank account is opened in the names of two persons "payable to either or the survivor." While he was still single, Richard Coddington opened a savings account with his mother, Amelia. The signature card they signed stated that the account was owned by them as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. No statement as to survivorship was made on the passbook. Richard later married Margaret. On Richard's death, Margaret claimed a share of the account on the ground that it was not held in joint tenancy because the passbook did not contain words of survivorship and because the statutory presumption of a joint tenancy was overcome by the fact that Richard had withdrawn substantial sums from the account during his life. Decide. [Coddington v Coddington 391 NYS2d 760 (Sup Ct App Div)]

Question 8

Martin Acampora purchased a shotgun at a garage sale years ago, never used the weapon, and did not know of any defects in it. His 31-year-old son Marty borrowed the shotgun to go duck hunting. As Marty attempted to engage the safety mechanism, the shotgun fired. The force of the shotgun's firing caused it to fall to the ground and to discharge another shot, which struck Marty in the hand. Classify the bailment in this case. What duty of care was owed by the bailor in this case? Is Martin liable to his son for the injury?

Question 9

Baena Brothers agreed to reupholster and reduce the size of the arms of Welge's sofa and chair. The work was not done according to the contract, and the furniture when finished had no value to Welge and was not accepted by him. Baena sued him for the contract price. Welge counterclaimed for the value of the furniture. Decide. [Baena Brothers v Welge 3 Conn Cir 67, 207 A2d 749]

Question 10

Schroeder parked his car in a parking lot operated by Allright, Inc. On the parking stub given him was printed in large, heavy type that the lot closed at 6:00 P.M. Under this information, printed in smaller, lighter type, was a provision limiting the liability of Allright for theft or loss. A large sign at the lot stated that after 6:00 P.M. patrons could obtain their car keys at another location. Schroeder's car was stolen from the lot sometime after the 6:00 P.M. closing, and he sued Allright for damages. Allright defended on the basis of the limitation-ofliability provision contained in the parking stub and the notice given Schroeder that the lot closed at 6:00 P.M. Decide. [Allright, Inc. v Schroeder 551 SW2d 745 (Tex Civ App)]

Question 11

John Hayes and Lynn Magosian, auditors for a public accounting firm, went to lunch at the Bay View Restaurant in San Francisco. John left his raincoat with a coatroom attendant, but Lynn took her new raincoat with her to the dining room, where she hung it on a coat hook near her booth. When leaving the restaurant, Lynn discovered that someone had taken her raincoat. When John sought to claim his raincoat at the coatroom, it could not be found. The attendant advised that it might have been taken while he was on his break. John and Lynn sued the restaurant, claiming that the restaurant was a bailee of the raincoats and had a duty to return them. Are both John and Lynn correct?

Question 12

Rhodes parked his car in the self-service parkand- lock lot of Pioneer Parking Lot, Inc. The ticket that he received from the ticket meter stated the following: "NOTICE. THIS CONTRACT LIMITS OUR LIABILITY. READ IT. WE RENT SPACE ONLY. NO BAILMENT IS CREATED." Rhodes parked the car himself and kept the keys. There was no attendant at the lot. The car was stolen from the lot. Rhodes sued the parking lot on the theory that it had breached its duty as a bailee. Was there a bailment? [Rhodes v Pioneer Parking Lot, Inc. 501 SW2d 569 (Tenn)]

Question 13

Newman underwent physical therapy at Physical Therapy Associates of Rome, Inc. (PTAR), in Rome, Georgia, for injuries sustained in an auto accident. At a therapy session on February 6, it was necessary for Newman to take off two necklaces. She placed one of the necklaces on a peg on the wall in the therapy room, and the therapist placed the other necklace on another peg. After the session, Newman forgot to retrieve her jewelry from the wall pegs. When she called the next day for the forgotten jewelry, it could not be found. She sued PTAR for the value of the jewelry on a bailment theory. PTAR raised the defense that there was no bailment because Newman retained the right to remove the jewelry from the wall pegs. Decide. [Newman v Physical Therapy Associates of Rome, Inc. 375 SE2d 253 (Ga App)]

Question 14

Charles and Nicolette went to Italy in November 2008, where Charles proposed marriage and presented Nicolette with a diamond ring. She accepted the proposal and the ring. On the same day, Nicolette asked Charles where he had purchased the ring. She became disappointed when he told her where he bought it, and she gave him back the ring, suggesting a different style she would like. He returned the ring to the jeweler and received a refund of $5,000. He then purchased a new ring for $12,000. Charles testified that near the end of November he "reproposed" and presented the second ring to Nicolette. The relationship soon soured and in late February 2009 Charles asked for the return of the ring. Contrary to Charles' testimony that he gave the second ring as an engagement ring in late November, Nicolette testified that he gave the second ring to her a few days before Christmas as a holiday gift. Was it an engagement ring or a holiday gift? What legal significance is there to how the gift is classified? Decide. [ Miller v. Chiaia, 2011 WL 1367050 (Conn. Superior)]

Question 15

Charter Apparel, Inc., supplied fabric to Marco Apparel, Inc., in December to manufacture finished articles of clothing at its Walnut Grove, Mississippi, facilities. The fabric arrived just before the Christmas holiday shutdown and was stacked on cutting tables in the old building, which was known to have a roof that leaked. The evidence showed that no precautions were taken to cover the fabric and no guard was posted at the plant during the shutdown. Severe weather and freezing rain occurred during the shutdown, and it was discovered that the rain had leaked through the roof and destroyed more than $400,000 worth of the fabric. Marco denied that it was negligent and argued that it exercised ordinary care. It offered no evidence to rebut Charter's prima facie case or to rebut Charter's evidence of negligence. It asserted, however, that as a bailee it was not an insurer of goods against severe weather conditions. Decide. [California Union Ins. v City of Walnut Grove 857 F Supp 515 (SD Miss)]