The term adverse possession often paints a hostile picture of squatters occupying land that is not t
The term adverse possession often paints a hostile picture of squatters occupying land that is not theirs. However this is quite rarely the case. Adverse possession may arise when someone is in occupation of land, which they believe to be theirs, or is unaware that a lease has ended, and there has been no legal action to try and rectify their innocent mistake. The scope for adverse possession comes from the Limitation Act of 1980 and has been more recently altered by the Land Registration Act 2002. So the question is raised as to when it is that the time starts to run. It was identified in M'Donnell v M'Kinty1 that the time starts to run as soon as there has been a discontinuance or dispossession of the land by the adverse possessor. Discontinuance is when the true owner is said to have abandoned the land as opposed to dispossession where the intruder drives the true owner out of possession2. The years can be cumulative, so the successor can claim adverse possession even if he has only accrued half of the requisite years himself. It is important to note here that in order for a successor to benefit from the previously gained years the person before them must also have been in adverse possession. In the scenario Tom has himself been in possession of the land by means of dispossession for the 12 years needed for unregistered land. However, if Lanchester Developers had
The Doctrine of Notice
Robert Charles Alexander (054643848) - M100 LL.B (Hons.) Law - Level Two 2 January 2007 Property Law I - Assignment: Q2: "The doctrine of notice belongs to the history books and has little significance for purchasers of land today" Introduction This is a question about the doctrine of notice or, the purchaser known as 'equity's darling' (as they are sometimes referred to). In order to critically evaluate the validity of the view expressed by the writer in the question, it is will be necessary to: a) understand the doctrine of notice and its historical development and, b) determine whether the current position of the law and the applicability of the doctrine of notice is pertinent for purchasers of land today. In addition to these elements, it will also be necessary to factor in some understanding of the way that land is registered in the United Kingdom, as well as the problems incurred through that land which remains unregistered and how various attempts (through statute) over the years have tried to tackle this problem. It is from these, that the doctrine of notice has its very origins. It is naturally of some considerable importance to apprise the different types of equitable interests in real property as it these which purchasers of land are interested in and, moreover, how to protect those interests. Determining exactly what one's interests in real property are
An easement essentially is a right in anothers land and confers both a benefit and a burden.
An easement essentially is a right in another's land and confers both a benefit and a burden. Megarry & Wade1 introduces easements by stating: - "The common law recognised a limited number of rights which one landowner could acquire over the land of another; and these rights were called easements and profits. Examples of easements are rights of way, rights of light and rights of water." Easements can exist in all number of ways, including an easement to store goods as in Wright v Macadam2 and an easement to use an airfield as in Dowty Boulton Paul Ltd v Wolverhampton Corporation.3 However, the requirements to ensure the validity of easements can actually restrict the range of rights that can operate as easements. Some may argue that the law which governs the creation and acquisition of easements has been developed in a haphazard manner and is in need of reform. Indeed, Dr Martin Dixon4 commented on this: - "Section 62 LPA 1925 is difficult to justify and usually operates only to rescue parties who have failed to specify what they really want or to catch out the innocent but unadvised land owner. It is not clear that it has a role in a system of e-conveyancing. There are uncertainties about its precise field of operation, save that it operates only on grant." The conditions needed to satisfy the creation of an easement were set out in Re Ellenborough5, whereby four rules
Following the decision in Stack v Dowden1, the law concerning co-ownership and the parties presumptive corresponding shares of the property in both sole and joint ownership cases has undergone a substantial transfiguration
‘At its simplest the principle in Stack v Dowden is that a “common intention” trust, for the cohabitants’ home to belong to them jointly in equity as well as on the proprietorship register, is the default option in joint names cases. The trust can be classified as a constructive trust, but it is not at odds with the parties’ legal ownership. Beneficial ownership mirrors legal ownership. What it is at odds with is the presumption of a resulting trust.’ Following the decision in Stack v Dowden[1], the law concerning co-ownership and the parties’ presumptive corresponding shares of the property in both sole and joint ownership cases has undergone a substantial transfiguration, with the substructure of the presumption of beneficial interest diverting from, and overruling, the previous decisions of Pettit v Pettit[2] and Gissing v Gissing[3]. The new presumptive standpoint would indeed appear to simplify the law surrounding disputes of beneficial interest, but to attempt to conceptualise the ‘simplicity’ of the subsequent principles is to greatly disparage the complexities, nuances and issues which also emanate from the resultant legal position. The determination of beneficial interest in a property is primarily ascertained through express or implied trusts. Where there is an express declaration of trust, the shares contained therein are conclusive[4] unless
The Requirement for formalities detracts from the autonomy of the land owner in dealing with his or her property. Discuss
The Requirement for formalities detracts from the autonomy of the land owner in dealing with his or her property. Discuss The need to ensure certainty in dealings with land expressed through formality requirements is often in conflict with the desire to leave individuals to their bargains especially if to do otherwise would generate harsh results. To some extent it can be argued that formality requirements detract the autonomy of land owners in dealing with their property. However, it may be well thought that this detraction is justifiable as insistence on certainty in land transactions brings its own fairness, at least for the society as a whole where the free alienability of land is so critical to the domestic economy. Formalities in the legal sense can be seen as a requirement as oppose to mere habits of conventions. It is a matter of substance and must be put on a particular form in order for it to have a legal effect1. Formalities gives the land owner some sort of autonomy of its own as they can do whatever they intend to do with the land. For example once a freeholder goes through the appropriate formalities to get a deed2, they can then decide to rent out a lease from this, carving out estates of their own and selling them to raise capital. Nonetheless, it does control landowners’ behaviour. It stops them from creating arrangements that suits their personal needs.
Do changes to the adverse possession rules in the Land Registration Act 2002 reflect changes in the concept of title?
Do changes to the adverse possession rules in the Land Registration Act 2002 reflect changes in the concept of title? In English Law, historically title for both property and land is acquired by adverse possession. The fundamental nature of the term adverse possession is when a person, also known as a squatter, takes possession of the land and attempts to acquire the title to the land from the registered proprietor, also known as the ‘paper’ owner. Hence, this means that possession itself is a mean of acquiring property rights. The Law Commission Report called ‘Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century: A Conveyance Revolution’[1] states that the purpose of the Land Registration Act 2002 was to create a legal framework for which they can conduct registered electronic conveyance. Its objective was to make “the register a complete and accurate reflection of the state of the title of the land at any given time”. The Land Registration Act 2002 has made it difficult to acquire title through adverse possession these would include squatters. Previously before the introduction to the Land Registration Act 2002 the same basic rules applied for both unregistered and registered titles, now these rules only apply where it is in relation to unregistered title. I will be making a comparison to this throughout this essay, as I believe it holds practical importance. The
Land law problem question - access
Introduction The Land Registration Act 1925[1], which first introduced the system of registered land, its aim was to simplify conveyancing by placing all the essential information about an estate in the land on a register. In 1998, Law Commission and the Land Registry proposed major changes to the system of registered title, by a consultative document, Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century, Law Com No 254[2]. In the view of this, the LRA 1925 was repealed and replaced by the Land Registration Act 2002[3].[4] The LRA 2002 has maintained the basic structure of registered land introduced by the LRA 1925.However under the new Act, more titles to land must now be registered; more interest must now be entered on to the register to be protected, consequently reducing the overriding interests; the way in which property can be acquired through adverse possession has been fundamentally watered down; a system has been put in place which paves the way for electronic conveyancing.[5] The system is often described as being based on three principles: . The mirror principle. This means that the register is intended to reflect accurately all the facts material to a given title. A purchaser is not concerned with the past history of the title, nor is he required to carry out the sort of inquiries and inspections that may be expected of the purchaser of unregistered land; the
This essay will attempt to critically evaluate some of the legal and policy issues that led to the enactment of the Party Wall Act 1996 and whether it has been successful.
This essay will attempt to critically evaluate some of the legal and policy issues that led to the enactment of the Party Wall Act 1996 and whether it has been successful. Lord Lytton expressed it best in his speech during the second reading of the bill for the Party Walls Act 1996. He insists that many of the disputes between adjacent owners are out of proportion to the issues and this is the key problem which the Bill attempts to address.1 He shrewdly points out some of the problems within the existing legislature in dealing with party wall structures between adjacent neighbours. What Lord Lytton is referring to is the often preventable disputes that neighbours experience when one of the parties, namely, the 'building owner' undertakes construction work. This includes work that is ..."carried out to a party wall or other shared boundary structure. They also apply to the erection of a new boundary structure ('line of junction works') and to excavations which have the potential to interfere with the stability of an adjacent building or structure ('adjacent excavations')."2 Often times, this dispute cannot be settled by the two parties alone and thus legal ramifications ensue. However, if there was an agreement between the two parties prior to the start of construction, this would lower the likelihood of a dispute and subsequent legal actions. This readily use of legal
Concept of proprietary estoppel - it could be said that the courts are restrictive when it comes to claiming for proprietary estoppel. However this approach has left the courts criticising each other cases as seen in Basham, Taylor and Gillett and leavin
"In spite of the modern acceptance of a broadly based test of unconscionable dealing, the approach of the court when faced with estoppel claims tends to be restrictive. The courts treat such claims 'with a degree of caution', mindful of the fact that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel 'may have the drastic effect of conferring on one person a permanent, irrevocable interest in the land of another, even though he has given no consideration for such acquisition, by way of contractual arrangement, and no legally effective gift of it has been made in his favour '" Critically analyse and assess this statement with particular regard to recent academic commentary and modern case law. Word Count = 2554 To evaluate this statement we must examine the cases been bought to the judiciary on the concept of proprietary estoppel, how the judiciary made their decision on the basis of proprietary estoppel. Land is defined by the Law of Property Act 1925 at S205 (1) (ix). When we buy property we do not own that land, the crown owns all the land. The best one can own is an estate/interest in land. Since the LPA1 1925, there are two legal estates in land and five interests. The two legal estates are set out in S.1 (1) (a) and (b) of the 1925 Act, namely; an estate in fee simple absolute in possession and a term of years estates. The five legal interest are contained at Section (2) (a)
Tenancy Type. Mary owns a residential property in Putney, London. Five months ago she entered into a written agreement to let the whole of the property to Martin for a period of five years and Martin duly moved in. The agreement specifically stated, inte
Task 3: Mary owns a residential property in Putney, London. Five months ago she entered into a written agreement to let the whole of the property to Martin for a period of five years and Martin duly moved in. The agreement specifically stated, inter alia, that the property must be used for residential purposes only. M now considering using the property for business purposes. Mary may sell the house. Before critically discussing Martin's position it is necessary to consider the general legal position and analyse these to apply to the factual matrix. The issues that arise are the type of tenancy, whether a breach of the tenancy gives rise to any remedy and if so what, whether the tenancy terms are fair in any event and whether rights or liabilities arise on the sale of a property. I will consider these in turn. Types of Tenancy In the residential sector there are a number of different types of tenancies that exist. However only a certain number relate to the private sector. The Law Commission has considered that the preset position is unsatisfactory and has recommended that these are all changed to only two types effectively a type 1 and type 2.1 Firstly there are protected regulated tenancies. For the most part these are rare as any tenancy created after 15th January 19892 cannot be such a tenancy as a result of the Housing Act 1988. Certainly this means the