Theo and james were married on june 20, 2015, and they decided to make their home in portland, oregon, where they own a two-story home with an attached garage. the documents of ownership clearly state that should either theo or james die, their interest in the property will pass to the surviving party. neither theo nor james can sell his interest in the property without the other's consent.
this form of co-ownership is best described as a

Minolta inc. is considering a project that has the following cash flow and wacc data. what is the project's mirr? note that a project's projected mirr can be less than the wacc (and even negative), in which case it will be rejected. wacc: 10.00% year 0 1 2 3 4 cash flows -$850 300 $320 $340 $360

Sally is buying a home and the closing date is set for april 20th. the annual property taxes are $1,234.00 and have not been paid yet. using actual days, how much will the buyer be credited and the seller be debited

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court. the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court. because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located. because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center. because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.