FIU Property Condemnation Discussion

Running head: PROPERTY LAW1
Property Law
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Date
PROPERTY LAW
2
The United States Constitution already guarantees the right to private property, which the
government should not violate. The federal government must interfere in matters like these to
ensure that a local municipality is not usurping power (Miller, 2021). It would also be necessary
to check if it is even constitutional for such development projects to happen. Local governments
need to generate revenue, which is one way they do this through selling parcels of land for retail
or residential development (Miller, 2021|). The United States Constitution does not guarantee an
individual the right to own all property outright, so it would be permissible for governments and
developers alike to legally seize properties from owners as long as they compensate them
adequately for their loss.
The term that suits the right of Roche citizens to walk across Shoepke’s land is an easement.
An easement allows one the right to use land owned by another individual. It is an attentiveness to
land resulting from a deed. A warranty deed is a type of deed that guarantees the property it
describes is free from any liens and encumbrances. A court would typically infer that the following
covenants were included in a warranty deed that Shoepke received;
-He shall not sell, encumber, or convey the real estate described therein for the term of one
year after the date of sale thereof.
As a result, the grantee warrants and represents to the grantor that he is purchasing this
estate free from all liens and encumbrances whatsoever, except such as may be disclosed on an
examination of title made by the said grantee or his assigns before closing.
Yes, he can hold Slater financially responsible. Even though a trustworthy person called
him and Slater has no responsibility for his trustworthiness, because Indalecio was at the shoepke’s
house at the time of the incident, it is clear that his duty lies with both Shoepke and Shane. This is
because Indalecio had no authority over what happened while on Shoepke’s property, so if he
PROPERTY LAW
3
damaged something there, he should be held accountable by either one of them. It is important to
note that he had nothing to do with this event, even if it was clear.
The covenant of quiet enjoyment is a concept in the law that addresses the right to peace
and tranquility as provided on certain tenement buildings, including apartment buildings. It
protects tenants from being disturbed by noise or disturbances outside their dwellings. For
example, if a tenant leaves their bedroom window open to ventilate during the day, they might
disturb other tenants trying to sleep in the building. In this case, it would violate Article 14 of The
Tenant’s Rights Ordinance for someone else in the building to throw Frisbees over their yard
without first asking Mr. Shoepke and receiving consent. Article 14 of the Tenant’s Rights
Ordinance states that every tenant has a right to “quiet enjoyment,” which means that no one else
in the building is allowed to disturb them or cause outbursts. This is why Mr. Shoepke should be
able to sue the teenagers for upsetting him with their Frisbee games and causing explosions. The
teenagers were inconsiderate because they should have known better than to disturb someone
trying to relax on his porch and read a book, especially on a warm summer day, and their constant
Frisbee throws violated Mr. Shoepke privacy.
PROPERTY LAW
4
Reference
Miller, R. L. (2021). Business Law Today, The Essentials: Text and Summarized Cases. Cengage
learning.