Ruth and Stella Were Sisters, Who Owned

Ruth and Stella were sisters, who owned a house as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Ruth sold her half interest to Roy. Stella died, and Roy claimed the entire property. However, Roy was not entitled to the property. Joint tenants each possess an undivided interest in real property. Unlike tenants in common, joint tenancy comes with certain restrictions, including the right of survivorship. However, one of the other restrictions is that joint tenants can not sell their interests in the property without the permission of the other joint tenants, because each party has an undivided interest in the property. Therefore, the sale between Ruth and Roy was void. Who actually deserves title to the property depends on whether Stella outlived Ruth and the provisions for the property made in the applicable will.

Harry Gordon gave $40,000 to his son Murray. Murray placed $20,000 in each of two custodial accounts under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act. Murray later closed the accounts, giving the balance to Harry. Murray and his wife separated, and she sought the money for her sons, stating that the deposits were irrevocable gifts. Murray contended that the money was never intended as a gift, but was merely deposited in the boys' accounts as a means of avoiding taxes. However, under the UGMA, gifts to minors are irrevocable. No guardian or custodian of the account has any right to the funds. Once Harry turned the funds over to Murray to be placed in accounts for his sons, the funds became the sons' property. Therefore, Murray had no right to turn the funds over to his father.

7. Under New York law, there is a presumption that bank accounts opened under two names or to the survivor creates a joint tenancy. Richard Coddington opened such an account with his mother, Amelia. Richard later married Margaret. When Richard died, Margaret claimed a share of the account, claiming that the statutory presumption of a joint tenancy was overcome by the fact that Richard had made substantial withdrawals during his life. However, the a legal presumption can only be overcome by overwhelming evidence. Richard and Amelia signed signature cards indicating that there was a right of survivorship. Richard's withdrawals from the account did not deprive Amelia of her rights in the account. It is likely that, during his lifetime, Amelia wanted her son to be able to make substantial withdrawals from the account, but wanted to preserve her interest in the money on the event of his death. The fact that there was no language about survivorship on the passbook was insufficient to defeat the presumption of a joint tenancy.

11. John and Lynn attended lunch at the Bay View Restaurant. John checked his coat, but Lynn hung hers on a hook near her booth. Both coats ended up missing, and John and Lynn sued the Bay View. They contended that the Bay View was the bailee of their possessions. John was correct in his assertion. When John gave his coat to the coat check attendant, he entrusted Bay View with the safe keeping of his coat. The fact that the attendant left the coat unattended in order to go on a break was a breach of Bay View's duty to John. However, Bay View was not a bailee of Lynn's coat. Lynn kept her coat in her possession and was responsible for keeping it safe. Nothing that Bay View did indicated to Lynn that they were taking responsibility for Lynn's coat.

14. Contract Packers rented a truck from Hertz Truck Leasing. The truck's brakes malfunction, which resulted in the injury of Packer's employ Cintrone. Cintrone sued Hertz for breach of the implied warranty that the truck was fit for use. Hertz responded that implied warranties applied only to sales, not to bailments for hire. However, a bailment for hire is a form of a sale; it is the sale of the use of property. Therefore, the purchasers of that use should be entitled to the same protections as the purchasers of property. As a result, Cintrone should be entitled to compensation from Hertz.