In many legal settings specialized forms of written communication are required. In many others, writing is the medium in which a lawyer must express their analysis of an issue and seek to persuade others on their clients' behalf. Any legal document must be concise, clear, and conform to the objective standards that have evolved in the legal profession. To be effective in this form of writing, the lawyer must be sensitive to the needs, level of interest and background of the parties to whom it is addressed. A memorandum to a partner in the same firm that details definitions of basic legal concepts would be inefficient and an annoyance. In contrast, their absence from a letter to a client with no legal background could serve to confuse and complicate a simple situation.

Examples of this type are appellate briefs and negotiation letters written on a clients behalf. The lawyer must persuade his or her audience without provoking a hostile response through disrespect or by wasting the recipient's time with unnecessary information. In presenting documents to a court or administrative agency he or she must conform to the required document style. Guides are available to aid a lawyer in preparing the documents but a unique application of the form to the facts of the situation is often required. Poor drafting can lead to unnecessary litigation and otherwise injure the interests of a client.

While it serves to provide the experienced reader with enough information to evaluate and retrieve the cited authorities, it may, at first, seem daunting to the lay reader. Court rules generally specify the citation format required of all memoranda or briefs filed with the court. Within recent years, online and disk based law collections have become primary research tools for many lawyers and judges. Because of these changes, there has been growing pressure on those ultimately responsible for citation norms, namely the courts, to establish new rules that no longer presuppose thata publisher's print volume created over a year after a decision is handed down is the key reference. Our client john doe has expanded his family business on to a piece of property without access to the local roadway. At the time of his purchase, the property accessed the road via a gravel easement across property owned by arnold robinson.

Family Values Essay Topics

Baum contends that doe has no legal right to an easement across her property and has erected a fence to prevent its use. Would doe be success in an action forcing baum to continue allowing him access to the roadway via the easement on her property? no. New york real estate law provides that if the conveyance was not duly recorded at the time of its approval, the easement does not pass on to subsequent owners of the property. Doe rsquo s neighbors, the millers, owned a vacant lot adjacent to doe rsquo s property. The parcel between tjane baumhe vacant lot and the roadway was sold to arnold robinson in 1998 and in the intervening time the millers had been using a gravel road on the robinson property to access the lot.

All Ivy Writing Services Review

Construction of the new facility began immediately with continued access via the gravel road across the robinson property. In august, 2008, robinson decided to sell the property and in september, 2008, prospective buyer zoey baum visited the property on two consecutive days. Baum witnessed construction traffic using the gravel road, but did not inquire about it. Baum then had a fence constructed to restrict access to her property and prevent usage of the road.

Doe approached miller and told her he had an easement for the road and asked her to reopen the road. Baum contended that no right of way was noted on her need, nor had it shown up in her property records search prior to purchasing the land. Miller conducted her property records search in delaware county, the county where the easement would need to have been recorded. Doe seeks to force the removal of the fence and enjoin baum from future attempts to prevent access to his property. An examination of the property records in delaware county indicates that baum is correct and no easement for the baum property was recorded by previous owners rsquo millers and robinson. New york real property law section 291 states, in part: ldquo a conveyance of real property hellip may be recorded in the office of the clerk of the county where such real property is situated hellip rdquo as such, if the millers and robinson filed the notice of the right of way with their local county clerk, the evidence of the easement would be found in the county clerk rsquo s office. Since the easement were not recorded, then per the provisions of the same section, ldquo every such conveyance not recorded is void hellip rdquo the lack of filing of the conveyance may be enough, on its merits, to deny any claim that doe might have to the easement.

Academic Reading And Writing By Stephen Bailey

If the lack of filing is not sufficient grounds to deny doe rsquo s claim, the court may be inclined to review precedents in the case. Several precedents rely on the facts of the case and what the purchaser could reasonably have observed prior to purchase of the property. The courts have held that the onus is on the purchaser if there is a reason to believe that prior rights might exist. However, if baum can successfully argue that she had no reason to believe an easement existed, the court is likely to find in her favor. recording of the easement as noted previously, new york real property law section 921 provides that any conveyance may be recorded with the clerk of the county where the property is located.

Blood Transfusion Review Article

The law does not require that a notation about the conveyance be recorded on baum rsquo s deed. 2d at 726 1997 the court held that whether the easement is enforceable against the defendant depends on whether they had constructive notice by virtue of the statutes or by the ldquo visible and obvious rdquo nature of the easement. If the easement had been recorded as provided for by the law, then according to the precedent set by clements v. Baum had constructive notice of the easement and the court should rightly rule in doe rsquo s favor. However, as no evidence exists that the easement was filed, the court could choose to apply the later portion of new york real property law section 921 which reads, in part, ldquo every such conveyance not is void as against any person who subsequently purchases hellip rdquo the property. Baum could make a strong argument that because the easement was not recorded with the proper authorities it has been voided.

Phd Dissertations Online Health

Schultz, the court did not rule in the legality of the easement because neither side presented the facts of the case regarding the purchaser rsquo s foreknowledge of the easement. Specifically, the court writes that the ldquo facts necessary to decide whether it is enforceable against the defendants are not ascertainable from this record. 2d at 660 1970 , the court held that it must be determined if baum had ldquo either actual or constructive notice of plaintiff rsquo s rights rdquo with regard to the road. It could be argued that baum had constructive notice of the easement via her own observation of the use of the road during her pre purchase visit to the property.

Baum witnessed the use of the easement mdash commercial vehicles having uncontested ingress and egress mdash in september, 2008, prior to purchase of robinson rsquo s parcel. Baum failed to question the specific nature of the purpose of the commercial vehicles in question, although the onus for doing so was hers. However, after making the observation, she conducted an examination of property transfer records to determine if an easement existed. The court might find that this did, in fact, meet the onus placed on her as a potential purchaser and therefore reject doe rsquo s claim.

Constructive notice absent the recording of the easement, there is still legal precedent which may provide support for the doe case. 2d at 660 1970 , the plaintiffs alleged the wrongful relocation of telephone poles, but the court observed ldquo where there is open and visible use of property by a third person, a purchaser is put on notice of the possible existence of prior rights. Ldquo when a purchaser has knowledge of any fact sufficient to put him on inquiry as to the existence of some right or title in conflict with that which he is about to purchase, he is presumed hellip to have made the inquiry and ascertained the extent of such prior right. Rdquo it is obvious that baum made note of the trucks using the gravel road on her pre purchase visit to the property. Furthermore, she was concerned enough about the status of the property to conduct a property records search.

From this, it seems likely that the court will conclude that she had prior constructive notice. However, the court may conclude that baum rsquo s stated belief that the construction vehicles were there to remove the former owner rsquo s fruit stand taken together with her property records search is due diligence on the part of the defendant. 2d at 339 2006 , the court held that the nature of the easement must be determined using the original language of the conveyance.