In their wills, parents left an undivided one-half interest in a parcel of land to each of their two daughters, provided that, should the daughters decide to sell the property, their brother would have the first right to buy. After a dispute between the sisters, they each went to court to have their interests partitioned. The brother sued to exercise his first right to buy.

 

How would you decide each party's rights using Channer v. Cumming, 270 Neb. 231 (2005)? You will need to go into Nexis Uni (the legal research database) through the Library at the top of the screen to obtain the case. Please be sure to answer the following in your post:

 

1. Summarize Channer v. Cumming, 270 Neb. 231 (2005).
2. What is the importance of this case? What is the rule of law we should take and apply to our facts?
3. What is the Shepard's Signal for this case? Is it still "good law"?
4. Based on this case, how would you rule as the judge in the scenario above?
5. What is the difference between a joint tenancy (the sisters' current real estate status) and fee simple (what the sisters desire to each have after the land is partitioned)?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Channer v Cumming 270 Neb 231 2005 In Channer v Cumming the Nebraska Supreme Court held that a provision in a will that gave a sibling the first right to buy property owned by two sisters was valid Th... View the full answer