Hellow guys, Welcome to my website, and you are watching Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained. and this vIdeo is uploaded by Quimbee at 2020-11-11T14:01:23-08:00. We are pramote this video only for entertainment and educational perpose only. So, I hop you like our website.
| Name | Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained |
| Video Uploader | Video From Quimbee |
| Upload Date | This Video Uploaded At 11-11-2020 22:01:23 |
| Video Discription | Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz | 106 N.E.2d 28 (1952) When Joseph and Marion Van Valkenburgh purchased land in Yonkers, New York, in 1947, they never could’ve imagined the legal battle that would ensue over their ownership rights. Today, Van Valkenburgh versus Lutz is often used to teach first-year law students about adverse possession, and the court's analysis continues to be the subject of many law review articles. The story began more than thirty years before the Van Valkenburghs' purchase, when William Lutz bought two lots of land in Yonkers. Soon afterward, Lutz began cutting across unowned and undeveloped neighboring lots to access his land. Additionally, Lutz built structures on the neighboring lots and started a gardening business. The Van Valkenburghs purchased two of the used neighboring lots in 1947. After purchasing the lots, the Van Valkenburghs demanded that Lutz remove the structures from their land. Lutz agreed to do so but maintained his right to use a path on one of the lots to access his property. In response, the Valkenburghs constructed a fence blocking the path. Later, Lutz sued the Van Valkenburghs and obtained a right of way, or an easement by prescription, over the path. The Van Valkenburghs then filed suit against Lutz, claiming that the structures, namely a small one-room shack for Lutz's mentally handicapped brother, as well as a garage that encroached on their land by a few inches, infringed on their property rights. Lutz denied the allegations and filed a counterclaim asserting that he owned the land by adverse possession. The trial court agreed with Lutz and held that he had obtained title to the lots by adverse possession. The Van Valkenburghs appealed the decision to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Van Valkenburghs then appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/van-valkenburgh-v-lutz The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/van-valkenburgh-v-lutz Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Facebook ► https://www.facebook.com/quimbeedotcom/ Twitter ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries |
| Category | Education |
| Tags | Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz | briefs | quimbee | law case | case brief example | brief case | case brief | press brief | case summaries | legal brief | how to brief a case | case brief template | legal brief case | how to write a case brief | legal brief example | sample case brief | case brief format | example of a brief | law briefs | legal brief definition | what is a brief in law | what is a case brief | court brief | brief definition law | legal brief template | facts of the case | facts in issue |
