Treball Final de Grau en Mestre o Mestra d'Educació Infantil. Codi: MI1040. Curs acadèmic: 2017/2018El siguiente estudio se centra en el análisis del papel que juega el álbum ilustrado en el aula de
infantil, su importancia y la necesidad de que ilustración y texto se contemplen como un todo.
En un mundo en el que niños y niñas viven rodeados de estímulos visuales, es vital que desde
edades tempranas, y con la ayuda guiada del adulto, desarrollen su entendimiento visual para que
su comprensión de las imágenes no se quede en algo superficial. Es decir, que sepan profundizar
a medida que van creciendo, en la estrecha brecha que une literatura y arte dentro de los libros
ilustrados. Por ello, este trabajo además de reflexionar sobre este tema, y el papel de la educación
artística, también presenta una serie de propuestas de álbumes ilustrados con los que trabajar en
el aula de infantil cuestiones que acontecen día a día en nuestra sociedad.The following study focuses on the analysis of the role played by the illustrated album in the
preschool classroom, its importance and the need for illustration and text to be considered as a
whole.
In a world in which children live surrounded by visual stimuli, it is vital that from an early ages, and
with the guided help of adults, develop their visual understanding in order that his comprehension
of the images does not remain in anything superficially. In other words, they would know how to
deepen as they grow, in the narrow gap between literature and art inside illustrated books.
For these reasons, this work beside thinking about this topic, and the paper of the artistic
education, also presents a series of offers of illustrated albums with which to work at the preschool
classroom questions that happen day after day in our society

Villarraso Ligero, Jessica

Repositori Institucional de la Universitat Jaume I

El álbum ilustrado en Educación Infantil: más allá del texto

Appeal from Judgment of the Fifth Judicial District Court in and for Iron County, State of Utah, The Honorable J. Harlan Burns, Judge, Presidin

Utah Supreme Court

Brigham Young University Law School

English

United States of America v. George B. Loosley, dba Farmers Supply Company; Lockhart Finance Company v. United States of America; Marion Hammon and Gladys Hammon and Basic Investment, Inc. v. Sterling Griffiths and Donna Griffiths : Brief of Appellant

Appeal from Judgment of the Fifth Judicial District Court in and for Iron County, State of Utah The Honorable J. Harlan Burns, Judge, Presidin

bepress Legal Repository

United States of America v. George B. Loosley, dba Farmers Supply Company; Lockhart Finance Company v. United States of America; Marion Hammon and Gladys Hammon and Basic Investment, Inc. v. Sterling Griffiths and Donna Griffiths : Brief of Respondent

Brigham Young University Law SchoolBYU Law Digital CommonsUtah Supreme Court Briefs2001United States of America v. George B. Loosley, dbaFarmers Supply Company; Lockhart FinanceCompany v. United States of America; MarionHammon and Gladys Hammon and BasicInvestment, Inc. v. Sterling Griffiths and DonnaGriffiths : Brief of RespondentUtah Supreme CourtFollow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2Part of the Law CommonsOriginal Brief Submitted to the Utah Supreme Court; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter LawLibrary, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generatedOCR, may contain errors.Lauren N. Beasley; Attorney for Appellants.Michael W. Park; Attorney for Respondents.This Brief of Respondent is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah SupremeCourt Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available athttp://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at hunterlawlibrary@byu.edu withquestions or feedback.Recommended CitationBrief of Respondent, United States of America v. Loosley, No. 14247.00 (Utah Supreme Court, 2001).https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_sc2/1348RECEIVED LAW LIBRARY IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH SEP 1 7 197S UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. GEROGE B. LOOSLEY, dba FARMERS SUPPLY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. LOCKHART FINANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Cross-Complainant, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Cross-Defendants. MARION HAMMON and GLADYS HAMMON, his wife, Defendants and Appellants, and BASIC INVESTMENT, INC., Appellant, vs. STERLING GRIFFITHS and DONNA GRIFFITHS, his wife, Purchasers at Sheriff's Sale and Respondents. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF Appeal from Judgment of the Fifth Judicial District Court in and for Iron County, State of Utah The Honorable J. Harlan Burns, Judge, Presiding LAUREN N. BEASLEY MICHAEL W. PARK Suite 430 Judge Building 110 North Main Street, Suite F Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Cedar City, Utah 84720 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY J. Reuben Clark Law School Case No. 14247 F I L E D FEB 2 1 1976 Cleric, Supremo Court, Utah Attorney for Appellants Attorney for Respondents Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors.TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF THE KIND OF CASE . . 1 DISPOSITION IN LOWER COURT . . . . .2 RELIEF SOUGHT ON APPEAL 2 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ..2,3 ARGUMENT .3 POINT I 3,4,5 CONCLUSION 5 TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES Stameate V. Peterson, 250 Or. 532, 444 P. 2d 30 (1968) 5 STATUTES Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 69(f) (2) . . . . .3,4 Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors.IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. GEORGE B. LOOSLEY, dba FARMERS SUPPLY COMPANY, et al., Defendants. LOCKHART FINANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Cross-Complainant, vs. . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Cross-Defendants. MARION HAMMON and GLADYS HAMMON, his wife, Defendants and Appellants, and BASIC INVESTMENT, INC., Appellant, vs. STERLING GRIFFITHS and DONNA GRIFFITHS, his wife, Purchasers at Sheriff's Sale and Respondents. Case No. 1424 7 roa x. p »* ''vt.*» • RESPONDENT'S BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE KIN1' <>'/ CASE Respondents purchased a lease-hold interest in certain -; crated in Iron County, State of Utah, at Sheriff's Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. M chine-generated OCR, may contain errors.-2-Sale. Appellants improperly attempted to redeem that lease-hold interest and respondents disputed this redemption. DISPOSITION IN LOWER COURT The Trial Court found judgment in favor of the Respondents and held that Appellants had not properly exercised a right of redemption in the lease-hold interest. RELIEF SOUGHT ON APPEAL The Respondents seek affirmance of the judgment of the Trial Court. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Respondents do not disagree substantially with the statement of facts set forth by the Appellants but would add the following. At Sheriff's Sale, Respondents purchased a lease-hold interest in certain property. This lease-hold interest was reportedly assigned to Basic Investment, Inc., for the purpose of avoiding further payments to the United States of America. The check presented for redemption was presented in the sum of $10,706.00, to the law office of Michael W. Park, 110 North Main Street, Suite F, Cedar City, Utah. A certified copy of the docket of judgment or memorandum of record was not presented with the check, nor was an affidavit presented with the check showing the amount actually due on the lien. The check was not presented to Sterling Griffiths nor was the check presented to Donna Griffiths, nor was the check presented to the Iron County Sheriff, Ira Schoppman. Digitized by th  Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors.-3-The Court ruled on the Petition to Determine Redemption Right in favor of the Respondents and quieted title in the Respondents and Respondents took possession of the lease-hold interest and have had possession of the leased property since September of 1975. ARGUMENT POINT I THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN DETERMINING THAT APPELLANTS HAD IMPROPERLY ATTEMPED REDEMPTION. Rule 69(f) (2), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, reads as follows: "Redemption—How Made. At the time of redemption the person seeking the same may make payment of the amount required to the person from whom the property is being redeemed, or for him to the office who made the sale, or his successor in office. At the same time the redemptioner must produce to the officer or person from whom he seeks to redeem, and serve with his notice to the officer: (1) a certified copy of the docket of judgment under which he claims the right to redeem, or, if he redeems upon a mortgage or other lien; by a memordandum of the record thereof certified by the recorder; (2) an assignment properly acknowledged or proved, where the same is necessary to establish his claim; (3) an affidavit by himself or his agent showing the amount then actually due on the lien." The first requirement is that the redemptioner must make payment of the amount required to the person from whom the property is being redeemed. The person in this case was Sterling Griffiths or Donna Griffiths, his wife. Payment was not made to either of these persons. The redemptioner can also make payment to the officer who made the sale or his successor in office. The officer who made the sale was the Iron County Sheriff, Ira Schoppman, and payment was not made to this officer or his deputy or any successor in office. The A i ~ » r ^ 1 1 -*- -Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors.-4-The redemptioner should made payment as set forth above and should also provide a certified copy of the docket of the judgment under which he claims the right to redeem, or, if he redeems upon a mortgage or other lien; by a memorandum of the record thereof certified by the recorder. The appellant in this case submitted a check in the sum of $10f706.00 to attorney Michael W. Park, and did not provide a certified copy of the docket or judgment or anything certified by the recorder of Iron County. The redemptioner in this case provided an assignment when payment was made to the attorney, but said assignment was not properly acknowledged or proved and the assignment was necessary to establish the claim of Basic Investment, Inc. The redemptioner submitted payment to the attorney but did not provide an affidavit showing the amount actually due at that time as required by subsection 3 of the above rule. It is obvious then that the appellant in this case did not comply with any of the terms of the statute. The appellant did not make payment to the proper person. Appellant did not provide a proper document to show why payment was made. The Appellant did not provide a proper assignment demonstrating the authority by which he claims redemption. The Appellant did not provide a proper affidavit stating the amount which was then actually due. The evidence and the laws set forth above demonstrate that the appellant did not follow one requirement as set forth in rule 69(f)(2) in the alternative or the cumulative. Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors.-5-The Supreme Court of Oregon dealt with a case simular to this entitled Stameate V. Peterson, 250 Or. 532, 444 P. 2d 30 (1968). In that case the statute required a certain affidavit but the redemptioners chose instead to mail a copy of the notice of their intent to redeem to the attorney who had represented the purchasers at foreclosure sale. The Court held that this was not sufficient and stated that the statutory nature of the right of redemption gives rise also to the rule that it is not within the province of the Court either to increase or lessen the burden imposed upon a party seeking to exercise redemption. The Court also stated that the right to redeem is strictly statutory, because equitable rights of the mortgagors are extinguished by the foreclosure suit. The Court continued and said that the redemption must be pursued in accordance with the applicable statutes and not otherwise. CONCLUSION Payment was not made to the proper person as required by Rule 69(f)(2). Documents properly setting forth the claim of the Appellant were not included with payment as required by Rule 69 (f) (2). Appellants equitable rights were exhausted at the time of Sheriff's Sale. Thereafter, the statutes pertaining to redemption should be followed. Appellants failed to follow those statutes and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, BYU. Machine-generated OCR, may contain errors.

http://repositori.uji.es/xmlui/bitstream/10234/179703/1/TFG_2018_VillarrasoLigero_Jessica.pdf

El álbum ilustrado en Educación Infantil: más allá del texto

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repositori Institucional de la Universitat Jaume I

Brigham Young University Law School

bepress Legal Repository

bepress Legal Repository

Brigham Young University Law School