Unregistered land is the title that is established from old fashioned title deeds and is not to be found in the register of title governed by the Land Registration Act 2002. Unregistered land is land for which the title must be proved from the conveyancing of history of the land by the title document i.e. the deeds and related documents; and not by an inspecting register. Although this doesn’t mean that land doesn’t have the opportunity to be registered. For this question the rights considered are, firstly for Kate it is family rights and actual occupation, for Darryl we are asking the question as to whether it is okay to pay rent to lease the land, for Julie we are considering profits so establishing whether she can use the field as a shortcut and whether her goat can graze in the field and finally whether Alexander can practice as a chiropodist from the bungalow we are looking at whether the land is burden by a restrictive covenant. Firstly we have to advise Alexander on his situation with Kate who is Richards’s wife; so establish whether she has any family rights in the property and also whether she was in actual occupation of the property. Para 2 Sch 3 replaced S.70 (1) (g) of the Land Registration Act 1925 and under this it states to enjoy an overriding status there must be an interest in land, the interest must not be overreached and there must be actual occupation. First Kate has an interest in the land but it isn’t a proprietary interest as seen in National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth (1965) as it was held that Mrs Ainsworth right to remain in the house was a personal right against her husband which isn’t substantial to allow her the right to stay in the house. This is similar to Kate as it could be argued that it is onl... ... middle of paper ... ...it is a legal right to pay rent to lease the property. When it comes to Julie we can see that an easement is formed as it is created by deed meaning that it is a legal right and she would be able to use the land as a shortcut, however when it comes to her goat Luigi he isn’t allowed to graze on the land as it is an equitable interest as it is only oral permission. Finally when it comes to Alexander wanting to run a business from the bungalow we can see that he is restricted due to the dominant tenement meeting the criteria to restrict the servient tenement. Works Cited - MARTIN DIXON,2008.Modern Land Law. 6th Edition. Routledge-Cavendish -MARTIN DIXON,2012.Modern Land Law. 8th Edition. Routledge-Cavendish -Overriding Interests. 2014. Overriding Interests. [ONLINE] Available at: http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Land/Overriding-interests.php [Accessed 1st May 2014]
Stark began as a way to combat the abuse of doctors referring patients to clinics for tests in which they had a financial interest. Today it primarily deals with the hospital level and has seen compliance gained through the use of qui-tam lawsuits brought by non-governmental relators. Subpart A of this section will lay out the creation of Stark, the initial statute that created it and the many implementation phases and alterations it has gone through in its twenty-five plus year history. Subpart B will lay out some basic definitions that are necessary to understand the various elements of Stark violation. And Section C will give an introduction to the brief history of the SRDP.
...o the purchaser of unregistered land should the disposition be ultra vires, assuming that there is no actual notice of such then overreaching can take place. This has now evolved into their being no requirement for absence of notice. In addition Section 70 (1) (g) of the LRA 1925 protected as an overriding interest the property rights of those in actual occupation of the land as described by Lord Denning MR:
...d for you to sign and the land will be yours... no-one will bother you on your land” (pg.105). This incident leads to a long chain of corrupt acts. All community members signed, rather, finger printed the document and we’re assured “they could rely on this paper as it is the title to the land” (pg. 105). Two years passed and they returned with the document in hand, claiming the land was no longer theirs to live off of. The signed document was in truth an agreement to live on the land for a mere two years and a promise to uproot once the two years expired. In conjunction with the Labour Unions, Rigoberta’s father fights this upheaval, however the landowners bribe the judges lawyers and interpretors involved in the crooked legal battles, twisting the communities stance says the landowners offered a great deal of money to the judge through -machines/market/lawyers
This essay is about the land rights of of Australia and how Eddie Marbo was not happy about his land been taken away from him. In May 1982 Eddie Marbo and four other people of the Murray Islands began to take action in the high court of Australia and confirming their land rights. Eddie Marbo was a torres islander who thought that the Australian laws were wrong and who went to fight and try and change them. He was born in 1936 on Mer which is known as Murray Island. The British Crown in the form of the colony of Queensland became of the sovereign of the islands when they were annexed in1978. They claimed continued enjoyment of there land rights and that had not been validly extinguished by the sovereign. (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012)
The need for the law to recognise possessory and equitable interests in land under a system of registration of title is a contested issue in Australia. The term ‘title’ means the extent of ownership over property as recognised by the legal system. For the purpose of this essay, a system of registration of title means the Torrens title system. The protection of possessory and equitable interests in Western Australia will be discussed, with reference to the Torrens title system and real property. It will be argued that there is still a need for the law to recognise equitable interests in land, however, the Torrens framework does remove the need for the law for the law to recognise possessory interests, in particular the doctrine of adverse possession.
The author views the landlords as just people who are trying not to lose money on their investment (the property). The author explains that the unreasonable harshness of many landlords is often justifiable because it is the only way to secure them against loss. The author views the dispossessed German woman as a worthy person, which is why he rented two small rooms for the woman and her daughter. He views the "young street roughs" as just normal people who, if approached properly would help with good will. The author's views of each, is of good will. He does not view any of them with hate or anger.
The other owners in the neighborhood white , agreed to restrict colored people from buying houses in the neighborhood. Shelley had no knowledge of what the owners had done. He was not pleased with their ignorance.The circuit court declined to enforce the agreement on the basis that not all of the property owners had signed the covenant. Then Shelley appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which had no experience of a case like this before. The final decision was that any court may not constitutionally enforce a "restrictive covenant" which she prevents people of any particular race from buying
An issue facing society is whether the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), is sufficient in balancing the rights of Indigenous Australians and the rights of current land owners. To determine whether legislation is sufficient and fair, an investigation into the current societal view points needs to be considered by legislators, with an evaluation into the ways in which other societies cater to the needs of Indigenous land owners should be made. This information then allows recommendations and changes to be debated, to therefore to ensure more equitable legislation on land rights within Australia.
Bonzi found a necklace while staying at a hotel that is owned by Alpha Corp, and the question, “to whom does the necklace belong?” is asked. First of all, the type of property involved, from a legal perspective is personal property, and more specifically, tangible personal property because the necklace is a physical object that can be moved and touched. In determining who the necklace belongs to, the legal decision that needs to be made in relation to Bonzi is: who has legal ownership of the necklace?
What she does wish to do is to fence off the plot of land which
Land rights now referred to the continual legal exertion to reclaim ownership of the land and waters that was called home prior to British colonisation (Creative Spirits, 2011). Australian Museum (2015) and Creative Spirits (2011) acknowledge the struggle to gain legal recognition and ownership of Indigenous land is difficult and expensive. Furthermore, the history behind the struggle in earlier years often resulted in violence as Indigenous Australians were dispossessed of their land (Australian Museum, 2015). Subsequently, the struggle for land rights continued through the legal and political systems; as demonstrated in 1982 when Eddie (Koiki) Mabo and four other Meriam people decided to pursue declaration of their customary land rights in the High Court of Australia (Hill, 1995). Based on the findings of Creative Spirits (2011) Indigenous Australian land rights appeared promising in 1983 when the Hawke Government promised legislation to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s land rights are protected throughout Australia. The legislation was said to permit Indigenous Australians to exercise the right of control over mining on Indigenous Australian land to ensure sacred sites are protected (Creative Spirits, 2011). However, in 1984 the mining companies fought back to repossess control over land. Mining and pastoral industries were considered too powerful and
apartments in certain areas of a city. The goal is usually to protect the rights
However, most of the people whose homes were in this area had given their properties up for just compensation by the city without a struggle; only a small portion went to the courts about losing their land. The main reason behind these people taking legal action was because apparently they held a connection to their land; many had spent much time working on their home to bring it to the condition it was, raising its value not only marketably but sentimentally as well (Linder). Despite the promise of being justly compensated for being relieved of their land - which would have been generous seeing as all the properties in question seemed to be in good condition, because the people who sued the state felt that the labor (or other reasons for attachment) outweighed whatever they would have received for it by the city they tried to keep their
In law there are two types of land, registered and unregistered. It is necessary to register land so the register precisely reflects the state of the registered property, so it is clear to see who the current owner is and whether there are any third party proprietary interests affecting it; this is important as it would make many lal enquiries easier and will show the property’s reality to any future purchasers. The purpose of land registration according to Gray and Gray (2008) is that “any prospective purchaser of registered land should always be able to verify, by simple examination of the register, the exact nature of all the interests existing in or over the land which he proposes to buy”. There are three main principles of land registration: the insurance principle, curtain principle and the mirror principle. The mirror principle which essentially means that the register reflects reality hence all facts significant to the land title are to be found on the register. The significant facts that should be included in the register are “the owner, the nature of his ownership, and any limitations on his ownership and any rights enjoyed by other persons over the land that are adverse to the owner”. However this is not always the case as some third party proprietary interests override registered dispositions, these are called overriding interests. Overriding interests are binding on a purchaser of any registered land even though they are not on the register.
The purpose of enacting The Land Registration Act 2002, was to combat the uncertainties evolved around the previous Act, Land Registration Act 1925 . The need for reforms was highlighted in a report by Law Commission known as Land Registration for the 21st Century: a Conveyancing Revolution . LRA 2002 repealed LRA 1925, not only simplify the law by maintaining an accurate record of all the rights and alongside interests held by others that affect the land, but also to give certainty the basic concepts engrossed by the 1925 Act as it can be very clearly evident that 2002 Act revolves around the original and principle ideas with amendments.