Issue
In the current scenario, there are four key people involved. They would be Priscilla Chan, Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and Maxima Zuckerberg. These are all the people who have claims in the property that Tim Cook owns based on paper. Priscilla Chan, in the case, was claiming ownership of all the modifications that Mark Zuckerberg made in the house. Mark, on the other hand, sues Priscilla using the same claim and basis—that he should retain ownership of all the modifications to the home that they rented. Their daughter, Maxima, surprisingly discovered gold in the property that they were renting from their friend Tim Cook. Tim Cook, on the other hand, was claiming everything that can be considered real estate (which includes the modifications plus the gold that was discovered). The legal question or issue here is who gets what. Specifically, when the lease contract between the Zuckerberg family and Tim Cook, for some reason finally ends, who is going to retain ownership of what assets?
Rule
The rule in this case should center on the validity of the lease agreement between the involved parties and what it actually says about the assets that are being claimed and disputed. Based on case information and logical assumptions (from the case as well), the lease agreement between Tim Cook and the Zuckerberg Family was valid, in written form, and clear about the retention of assets of whichever party after the contract acts. It clearly stipulated that all assets that may be considered as real estate or real property (in some literatures) would automatically be owned by Tim Cook, the legitimate and titled owner of the property.
Applications
The Zuckerberg Family members’ entering into the agreement means that they have understood this particular clause. So, the ruling here would depend on how real estate can be operationally defined. In general, real estate is a term used to identify the land property including all of the buildings or infrastructure affixed to it. However, real estate also encompasses other tangible aspects aside from these two including all attached and immovable structures and elements like buildings, trees, houses, bushes, and minerals permanently located in it. So, by legal definition, if the existing argument is going to be escalated into a legal trial, the court would most likely rule in total favor of Mr. Tim Cook. However, as mentioned, no one ones the existing debacle (especially of the Zuckerberg Family) to reach that point of escalation. So, what can Mr. Tim Cook do, being the person in the best position to make a compromising decision that would be beneficial to all parties, is to propose a resolution where he gets to keep everything except from the modifications (pertains to recoverable items) that the tenants made in his house during the entire duration of the lease agreement. This is the best settlement deal that the Zuckerberg Family can actually get because if they are going to pursue a court trial, they would simply lose them all because everything goes in favor of Mr. Tim Cook. There is a valid contract, the written and verbal consent of the Zuckerberg Family, and all the necessary evidence in favor of Mr. Cook. It is also worth noting that the Zuckerberg Family entered the agreement as a single entity (and not individual) so the Mr. Cook and the court would have to deal with them as a single entity only and not individually. Any problem that may arise between them may have to be settled in a separate legal discussion or settlement.
Conclusions
So, to summarize, in the current scenario (no court trials), Mr. Tim Cook can offer to return all the modifications (i.e. recoverable items) that the Zuckerberg Family made in his house during the duration of the lease agreement. However, he will have to retain ownership of the gold (even if it is Maxima who discovered it), because it is considered as real estate. This is the best deal for everyone, especially for the Zuckerberg Family because the court would rule in total favor of Mr. Cook if they are not going to settle. This should also be a workable solution considering that the parties involved are friends and Mr. Cook has nothing to lose by giving the tenants whatever they used to modify the leased building in the property.
