Hilton v Gray [2007] QSC 401 Deciding Court: Supreme Court, Brisbane, Trial Division Material Facts: Mr Gray has registered title of the land in question. CONVEYANCING – LAND TITLES UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM – INDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE – EXCEPTIONS – FRAUD OR FORGERY - whether knowledge of the forgery, or a state of mind amounting to reckless indifference as to whether the mortgage was forged, can be imputed to the plaintiffs because of their agents’ behavior. The amendments to the Land Title Act 1994 introduced in s. 185(1A) and s. 11A requiring reasonable steps to be taken to ensure the person who executed the instrument as mortgagor is identical with the person who is, or who is about to become, the registered proprietor of the …show more content…
Part 2 Division 2, 11A – Original mortgage to confirm identity of mortgagor, As the mortgage in this case was entered into before section11A along with consequential provisions along with consequential provisions of the Queensland Land Title act 1994 were introduced. Legal Issues decided - Discussion The real dispute about the plaintiffs’ rights was focused on whether the fraud exception to the protection afforded to the registered proprietor by s. 184(3)(b) of the Land Title Act had been enlivened by the conduct of Mr Lacy and Mrs Capper as the plaintiffs’ admitted agents or by that of Mr Sultan. On the factual findings I have made, Mr Sultan has not been shown to have acted fraudulently nor to have been the plaintiffs’ agent. - Analysis Although a series of events transpired suggesting fraudulent activity including: - A solicitors certificate that was unsigned, later signed by a non-admitted solicitor - Non verified/ checked documents with inconsistencies - Identities of the borrower never verified - No direct contact between the lenders lawyer and the borrower only the fourth …show more content…
There for Mr Gray is responsible for paying the Mortgage and interest. Legal Reasons for Decisions - Discussion - The court used previous cases such as Sabah Yazgi v Permanent Custodians Limited [2007] to substantiate their decision “It was common ground that because of the forgery, the personal covenant contained in the mortgage was not enforceable” - “In my view I am required by principle and local authority to decide that the terms of this mortgage, when it was registered, established an indefeasible right in the mortgagees to bring proceedings for repayment of the debt existing from the advance of the $206,000.” - Analysis The failure to talk to the justice of the peace is not evidence of fraud; see Young v Hoger [2001] QCA 453 at [26]. The other conduct by the agents did not amount to fraud either as a result the court finds in favor of the plaintiff thus requiring Mr Gray to pay the mortgage and pursue legal action against SHELLA LONERGAN in pursuit of recovery of funds, as Fraud must be shown to have been practised against the person who seek relief who in this case is Mr
in the country can afford the best lawyer and it is true to say that
“Even in the modern day world, women struggle against discriminatory stigmas based on their sex. However, the beginnings of the feminist movement in the early 20th century set in motion the lasting and continuing expansion of women's rights” (Open Websites). One such organization that pushed for women’s rights was the National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA) established in 1890. The NAWSA was the largest suffrage organization and worked toward securing the right to vote. The NAWSA however was split into two, the NAWSA and the National Women’s Party (NWP), when suffragists were disagreeing on how to achieve their goal.
D: Prior Proceedings: (What happened in the lower courts): BMO Harris Bank, hereby known as Mortgagee, sought action against Wildwood Creek Ranch, hereby known as Mortgagors and Guarantors subsequent to the foreclosure on an unimproved lot. Summary judgement was granted by the Superior Court in favor of the mortgagors and guarantor. Mortgagee appealed and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment.
Cherry argues that these attempts would satisfy the Inequitable result test Factors 1-5 but, the one that applies would be #5. Factor #5 applies because there was an intent to make a timely payment and it was attempted or tried to have the payment accomplished without neglect. The payments were intended to all be in good faith towards the lender. Thus, factor number five creates enough of the limited circumstances for the court to decide on Cherry’s favor in order to deny the foreclosure. Since Cherry intent was to pay Chase and also attempted to make the mortgage payments to Chase on time this factor would qualify Cherry to be granted the denial of the foreclosure. In addition, Cherry claims that he attempted to make the payments, but was told by a representative of Chase that there was no mortgage loan number upon which to apply the payments. As a result, the mortgage payments were placed into an account and later into his counsel’s trust account as a mortgage escrow account. In the end Cherry did take steps to make mortgage payments and Chase’s erroneous letter of satisfaction of payment helps Cherry on the fifth factor of the inequitable test
The courts stated that the statue of frauds purpose is to suppress fraud for instances cooked up claims of agreement, sometimes fathered by wish, imagined in the light of subsequent events and sometimes simply conjured up. In this case per the verbal contact that both parties had agreed to regarding that the Suttons could at any time during the first five years buy the property, but when the Werner’s reneged on the agreement, the Sutton’s sued and the Werner’s defended by alleging that the verbally agreement between both parties was not valid because there was not written contract. This was not ethical on the Werner’s behalf because the only reason that they reneged on the agreement was due to the increase value of the property, had the property depreciated or gone down in value the Werner’s would have acted or thought differently as this was not discussed in the beginning. In this case the doctrine of part performance, which states that if an oral contract for the sale of land or transfer another interest in real property to be specifically performed if it has been partially performed and performance is necessary to avoid injustice could be applied due to
...to Article I, Section 19, in order to reduce future litigation issues and injustices regarding regulatory takings that have already manifested in various court rulings in the United States. This paper has exemplified such ambiguity and inconsistencies regarding application of legal precedent for unconstitutional takings. This amendment will ensure a level playing field between anti-developmental interest groups and private owners. In summary, the overall goal of this proposed change is that when private properties are given historical designation, the owner bears a burden that is akin to managing publically owned properties and so the owner should be compensated for such takings.
After a long and prosperous law enforcement career and smart investments, Martin has finally decided to retire and visit his property that him and a few friends bought together many years ago. His friend and co land owner Peter has since passed on and had stated in his will that he would be leaving his interest in the property to his son Andrew. The issue is that Andrew needed money and has illegally taken out a loan for the interest in the property and Martin is now faced with a foreclosure because Andrew has defaulted on the loan. Under a joint tenancy, all are co-owners of equal shares and may sell their shares without the consent of other owners and their interest can be attached by creditors (Kubasek et al, 2015).
INTRODUCTION In Palgo Holdings v Gowans , the High Court considered the distinction between a security in the form of a pawn or pledge and a security in the form of a chattel mortgage. The question was whether section 6 of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 (NSW) (‘the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act’) extended to a business that structured its loan agreements as chattel mortgages. In a four to one majority (Kirby J dissenting) the High Court found that chattel mortgages fell outside the ambit of section 6 of the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act. However, beyond the apparent simplicity of this decision, the reasoning of the majority raises a number of questions.
We are writing you today to request that you reduce you lien by 50%. We understand that this is a significant reduction and we ask for this reduction for two reasons. One, in negotiating Mrs. Dunn’s
• People who sign only have an interest in the property and our not responsible to pay for the loan
securing land from private owners; if the government did not assert its power of eminent domain,
I reviewed the video and confirmed Marion’s account of the event was accurate. The DVD was placed into evidence at PRPD and the property receipt was attached to this report. Marion provided me with a receipt showing the value of the fraudulent return. The receipt was attached to this supplement along with a written statement from Marion.
Unwitnessed document is sent back to Mr Rodney Thomas . This, in turn, sent the documents, Mr Thomas Rodney, look at this. Mrs Nathan said a witness in the case to establish who was asked to sign a document. Create a copy of the certificate of title of Mr Thomas Rodney. Land Act of 1952 and the transfer process after completion of the registration documents for the payment of the mortgage debt will continue to go.
...he bona fide purchasers who do not possess any knowledge of the litigation and purchase the property. This makes them bound by the suit, which is inequitable. The ends of justice cannot be met by allowing the innocent to suffer. The reforms proposed will serve better purpose in meeting the needs of the all the parties and society.
The Land registration Act 2002 extends the range of events which trigger compulsory first registration making all titles to land registered. The primary aim of the LRA 2002 is to ensure the quick, efficient and inexpensive transfer of estates and interests in land while ensuring that third-party interests in land are properly protected. The interest must be a proprietary interest in the land for example possessory rights or an estate contract. Beneficial interest under a trust of land is sufficient as seen in the case of Boland; mrs boland’s husband the sole proprietor mortgaged the house to thebank and was unable to pay the loan. This led to the bank wanting to sell the house. The HOL decided that...