Author: Linus

Assignment 1 (1 Page) Answer the Questions
*Make At least one reference to Chapter 1 of Essentials Of Real Esstate Law
https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com
Login details will be available only for the assigned writer.
An Overview of Real Estate
In the interest of conducting a lively, engaging discussion, please keep the following in mind:
Opposing viewpoints are critical to any vibrant discussion, but remember to use internet etiquette and respect your classmates’ views and opinions. Provide constructive feedback or ask clarifying questions if you do not understand a classmate’s comment.
Most importantly, have fun interacting with the unit content, your classmates, and your instructor!
Refer to your course syllabus or the Discussion Rubric posted in Course Documents for discussion requirements.
*How do the courts treat real property and personal property?
To see how the courts treat one type of property, consider the scenario of a broken engagement. When it comes to a broken engagement, learn how one state’s courts treat this property type. Please read Gaden v. Gaden, 272 N.E.2d 471 (N.Y. 1971). In Gaden, real property was the “engagement gift” instead of personal property, like the engagement ring.
Answer the following questions:
*What was the court’s decision? What was the dissenting judge’s argument?
*Would the outcome in Gaden be different if the court treated the engagement ring as a different property type? Why, or why not?
*Remember to reference the property law rules in your answer and analysis.
—————————————————–
Assignment 2 (1 page) Review Unit 1 Seminar PowerPoint
1/2 page of Notes ( as if you were listening to the professor present the powerpoint)
1/2 page of key take aways of the PowerPoint. References and citations are not necessary.
—————————————————–
Assignment 3 (1/2 page) Expound on the topic with at least 150 words to include asking one question to Brandon G and citing 1 reference.
Brandon G Posted
Hello class!
The Court of Appeals of New York (1971) reversed the appellate division’s decision and reinstated the trial court’s judgment. The court held that Civil Rights Law § 80-b (1965), allowing for the recovery of property given in contemplation of marriage, applied to the real property in question. This was because the sole consideration for transferring the property to the wife was the contemplation of marriage, which did not occur. Since the former husband would bear the complete financial loss of the down payment in case of default, the court ruled in his favor for the return of the property (Gaden v. Gaden, 1971).
Justice Breitel dissented, arguing that applying Civil Rights Law § 80-b (1965) to real property in this context was inappropriate. His position was that this law was meant to apply to personal property, such as engagement rings, and not complex cases involving real property. Breitel argued that the majority’s interpretation could disrupt established property laws and transactions concerning real estate (Gaden v. Gaden, 1971).
If the court treated the engagement ring as personal property rather than real property, the outcome might differ due to the unique treatment of personal property in property law. Civil Rights Law § 80-b (1965) explicitly contemplates recovery of personal property given in contemplation of marriage. Engagement rings, as conditional gifts, are typically subject to return if the marriage does not occur, regardless of fault in breaking the engagement. However, real property has greater legal complexity and involves considerations of title transfer, financing, and equity contributions.
-Brandon
Gaden v. Gaden, 272 N.E.2d 471 (N.Y. 1971)
New York Civil Rights Law § 80-b (1965). Gifts made in contemplation of marriage. Retrieved from https://1-next-westlaw-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000060&cite=NYCRS80-B&originatingDoc=I24471c60171d11e78e18865f4d27462d&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=10be92f499304a1bb57a8cca358d9857&contextData=(sc.Search)
————————————————————
Assignment 4 (1/2 Page) Answer the Professor’s 2 questions from her response to Brandon G post. Site at least one reference.
Professor Navarro Posted,
Brandon, great start to our discussion.
I appreciate how you highlighted the application of New York Civil Rights Law § 80-b (1965) and its focus on gifts given in contemplation of marriage. Your explanation of Justice Breitel’s dissent, particularly his concern about the broader implications for real property law, provides valuable context for understanding the legal complexity of this case.
Your analysis of the potential outcome if the engagement ring had been treated as personal property is sharp. You correctly point out that personal property, such as engagement rings, is often treated differently under property law due to its conditional nature.
However, I’d like to expand on your point about legal complexity:
*what do you think about the potential for equity considerations to influence the court’s decision if real property had involved joint contributions or improvements by both parties?
Class, Brandon raised a great point about how real property has greater legal complexity compared to personal property.
*How do you think courts should balance the equitable interests of both parties when resolving disputes over real property given in contemplation of marriage, especially if one party made significant contributions to the property after the gift was made?
Thanks for sharing.
– Prof.