Methods of Acquiring Ownership: Possession, Sale, Inheritance, Gift, Right to Survivorship

08/25/2024

Methods of Acquiring Ownership

• List and explain five (5) ways in which one can acquire property. (10 points)

1. Possession- acquiring property can be done through possession, which allows individuals, multiple people, or businesses to obtain ownership. Real property can be acquired through a sale transaction between a seller and buyer. Possession of real property grants ownership and the right to make decisions, cultivate, and improve the property. However, neglected properties can be claimed through adverse possession if taxes are not paid, the property is abandoned, or it lacks upkeep.
2. Lost or misplaced property- can also be claimed through adverse possession in Indiana after being publicly occupied for ten years. There are three types of possession: active, constructive, and joint possession.
3. Inheritance- involves the distribution of a deceased person’s property to their heirs upon death through the individual estate. It establishes a balance of ownership between the person living on the property and the remainderman.
4. Gift- A property can be gifted by transferring legal documents to the recipient. 
5. Right to survivorship- is joint ownership of property, where if one owner dies, their ownership share is automatically passed to the surviving owner without going through probate.

Property ownership varies from person to person, and each situation is unique. There are various ways to acquire property, but the legal framework outlined in the document will determine the rights of ownership.

• Locate and cite Indiana’s intestate statute which provides the rules of descent. (Hint: This is not in Title 32: Property; review the titles and think about where it might be.) (5 points)

IC 29-1-2-1 Estate distribution

• Consider the following scenario: X, a single male who never married and never had children, dies; at the time of his death, his father was deceased, but his mother (Y) is still alive. His only sibling (Z) is also still alive. Now apply Indiana’s intestate statute and identify who will receive X’s property and in what percentage. (5 points)

In accordance with IC 29-1-2-1 Estate distribution Sec. 1. (a) The estate of a dying single male, unmarried dies intestate, the distribution of his estate is as follows:

1. The deceased male’s one surviving parent (mother) will receive 1/2 of his net estate but no less than 1/4 of the decedent’s net estate.

2. The remaining estate will be divided, with his sister receiving 1/2 of the remaining estate but no less than 1/4 of the decedent’s net estate.

There are certain amendments to estate distribution under this chapter for this single male unmarried. According to IC 29-1-2-1Estate distribution under Sec.1. (a) The estate of a person dying intestate shall descend and be distributed as provided in this section. The deceased male has one surviving parent who will receive 1/2 of his net estate, and his sister will receive 1/2 of the remaining estate but no less than ¼ of the decedent’s net estate.

IC 29-1-2-0.1Application of certain amendments to chapter

     Sec. 0.1. The following amendments to this chapter apply as follows:

(1) The amendments made to section 10 of this chapter by P.L.118-1997 do not apply to an individual whose death occurs before July 1, 1997.

(2) The amendments made to section 1 of this chapter by P.L.176-2003 apply only to the estate of an individual who dies after June 30, 2003.

(3) The amendments made to section 1 of this chapter by P.L.238-2005 apply to the estate of a person who dies after June 30, 2004.

(4) The amendments made to section 1 of this chapter by P.L.61-2006 apply to the estate of an individual who dies after June 30, 2005.

As added by P.L.220-2011, SEC.466.

IC 29-1-2-1Estate distribution

     Sec. 1. (a) The estate of a person dying intestate shall descend and be distributed as provided in this section.

     (d) The share of the net estate not distributable to the surviving spouse, or the entire net estate if there is no surviving spouse, shall descend and be distributed as follows:

(1) To the issue of the intestate, if they are all of the same degree of kinship to the intestate, they shall take equally, or if of unequal degree, then those of more remote degrees shall take by representation.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (e), if there is a surviving spouse but no surviving issue of the intestate, then to the surviving parents of the intestate.

(3) Except as provided in subsection (e), if there is no surviving spouse or issue of the intestate, then to the surviving parents, brothers, and sisters, and the issue of deceased brothers and sisters of the intestate. Each living parent of the intestate shall be treated as of the same degree as a brother or sister and shall be entitled to the same share as a brother or sister. However, the share of each parent shall be not less than one-fourth (1/4) of the decedent’s net estate. Issue of deceased brothers and sisters shall take by representation.

• Provide and explain the elements of adverse possession in Indiana as provided in the Poole v. Corwin case. (15 points)

The original owners, Cornelius Corwin, granted the real estate parcels to the Grand Rapids and Indiana Rail Road Company for a passenger depot on April 27, 1882. Subsequently, the railroad company sold the property to Poole. As a result, Poole filed an action to quiet the title of the specific real estate. In response, the descendants of Corwin filed an answer and a counterclaim to quiet title, asserting that Poole and his predecessor had provided actual notice of their intention to claim adversely to Corwin at the time the quiet title action was filed.

“Did Corwin’s heirs lose or misplace the property and neglect to maintain it until Penn Central Railroad Corporation sold it to Poole? Corwin’s argument is as follows: On April 27, 1882, a parcel of real estate was conveyed to the Grand Rapids and Indiana Rail Road Company by warranty deed. In the conveyed, their successor or assign shall fail to maintain their passenger depot upon said lot [lot adjoining the parcel being conveyed]… The deed shall be voided, and the real estate shall revert to C. Corwin and his heirs or assigns. The heirs to the Corwin estate stated that the railroad company had neglected to maintain the upkeep of the property since 1957.”

The trial court determined that Poole and his predecessors’ possession did not meet the criteria of being open, visible, notorious, actual, or exclusive and that property taxes were not paid.

However, Poole has presented compelling evidence that he and his predecessors had met all the requirements for adverse possession under Indiana Law. He argued that the property had been openly and exclusively possessed and that property taxes had been consistently paid. Poole further supported his claim by proving that the railroad no longer maintained a passenger depot on the property, violating the original deed condition. He firmly believes that he has fulfilled all the stipulations for adverse possession as per the trial court’s requirements.

Conversely, Corwin has failed to present any evidence to dispute the material facts, which would prevent a summary judgment in favor of Poole.

Poole’s case for adverse possession is supported by evidence and facts relating to the railroad company’s failure to maintain the property as per the original conveyance. He also pointed out the prolonged lack of occupation or use of the property by the owner since 1957. Furthermore, Poole asserted that the property had been abandoned, not maintained, and left unoccupied.

 In order to satisfy the legal guidelines for adverse possession, the claimant must demonstrate compliance with the court’s requirements, show that the original owner has vacated the property for a specific period, substantiate continuous use of the property, and provide proof of paying property taxes.

• Provide the elements of a valid gift as provided by the court in the Fowler v. Perry case. (10)

Fowler purchases an engagement ring in contemplation of marriage, and such engagement does not result in marriage; the person who purchased the engagement ring is entitled to the return of the ring; if impossible, then the monetary amount contributed towards the purchase price of the ring. The Appellant court concludes in favor of Perry and against Fowler that it is hard to determine they had a joint account by co-mingled both parties’ funds. How can the court determine whether Fowler pays for the engagement ring or by Perry? The argument by Fowler is requesting one-half of the engagement ring valued at $5,499.00. Again, the Appellant court found that it favored Perry and against Fowler.

The court determined that there was an engagement ring for a future marriage between Fowler and Perry. The court needs to address the propriety or the finding in two parts. 1st. The court examined that the ring constitutes a gift in contemplating marriage. Both courts recognize the ring as an engagement ring. The court used “betrothal” to refer to “a mutual promise or contract for a future marriage.” The court determined that the engagement ring was given to Perry in the contemplation of marriage. When either party breaks up, Fowler is entitled to getting the engagement ring returned if it cannot be returned, the jewelry purchase price.

In addition to the competency of the donor, a valid inter vivos gift, i.e., an absolute gift, occurs when: (1) the donor intends to make a gift; (2) the gift is completed with nothing left undone; (3) the property is delivered by the donor and accepted by the done; and (4) the gift is immediate and absolute.

By contrast, a gift is conditional if it is conditioned upon the performance of some act by the done or the occurrence of an event in the future. As such, marriage is an implied condition of transfer of title to the ring; thus, the gift does not become absolute until the marriage occurs.

Written by: Greg MD