Week 4 Assignment

47.1 The issue in the case of Buder v. Sartore revolves around the requirements and obligations that Buder was responsible for under UGMA when he made investments on behalf of his children. Specifically, did he make such poor decisions that he can be held irresponsible and liable for the losses incurred by the investing in speculative penny stocks? Sartore’s argument is that Buder did not act in the best interests of the children and UGMA dictates that Buder has the “fiduciary responsibility to manage the money in a prudent fashion for the benefit of the child”. (FinAid.Org) The fact that almost all of the penny stocks suffered substantial losses and that Buder had invested a large quantity of the children’s funds in those stocks shows that he did not handle the accounts responsibly. Sartore wins and Buder has to pay his children back for his poor lack of judgment in stock choices.
48.8
In the case between Joseph and Helen Naab versus Roger and Cynthia Nolan this issue to be determines is if adverse possession applies to the Nolan’s land which the Naabs’ garage resides. If a case where adverse possession is applicable, the person who possesses someone else’s real property can obtain the title that property if certain requirements are met. (Cheeseman, p. 761) Those requirements are that the ownership has existed for a prescribed period of time; the adverse possession is visible and known, the adverse possession is physically occupied by the adverse possessor; the possession has been continuous and peaceful; and the possession was not granted by permission of the owner. In this case, the Naabs win. The existence of the garage on the Nolan’s land meets all criteria listed above and the title of the land would be involuntarily signed over to the Naabs’. They would not have to move their garage.
49.2
The case of Love versus Monarch