History Of Torrens Title : A Statutory Scheme That Was Introduced By The Real Property Act

Australian laws relating to personal property securities (“PPS”) have been messy for years, based on often incomplete state records which have never been centralised. The major rationales for the reforms are that the previous laws were inflexible, outdated, and prevent product innovation.[1] Personal property incorporates intellectual property , an important repository of wealth in the 21st century.

In this case, Success Assets Pty Ltd (Success) borrowed money from Statewest Credit Society Ltd (Statewest) to purchase land, and the land was mortgaged as security. The plaintiff entered into a guarantee in favour of Statewest which secured the loan and all future loans from Statewest to Success. Success used money borrowed from Home Building Society Ltd (Home) to pay the loan from Statewest. Statewest’s rights under the guarantee (which includes those relating to future loans) and Home’s rights under the were transferred to the defendant, Bank of Queensland (BOQ).

Clark & Ors v Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council (Tenancy) [2011] NSWCTTT 526 (10 November 2011)

also discussed the relevance of the rejection of universal and absolute ownership. He discussed the idea that the Crown had ‘absolute ownership of, legal possession of an exclusive power to confer title to, all land in the Murray Islands.’ So to was the idea considered that the doctrine of tenure was complete, such that every segment of land which was acquired by England was held ‘mediately or immediately of the King who is the Lord Paramount’. Brennan J. concluded that ‘the doctrine of tenure applies to every Crown grant of an interest in land, but not to rights and interests which do not owe their existence to a Crown grant’. Thus, it was accepted by the majority that the Crown in fact acquired a radical title - as opposed to an absolute title - upon the acquirement of any land, and that this radical title would be subject to native title rights in the occurrence that the appropriate native title rights had not been reasonably or formerly

I agree with most of your arguments, except the first one, stating that Andrew and Martin both own equal shares of the property. Since the original contract was for joint tenancy with rights of survivorship and not tenancy in common, Andrew never owned any of the property.

Bachrach gave over his interest of the home to Salzman. At that point of time, Salzman closed the sale of her townhouse. Bachrach giving over the deed to Salzman at the time served two functions. Giving over the deed allowed her to obtain a favorable mortgage on the home and provided tax advantages. About six months later this helped Salzman continue to receive a monthly maintenance payment from her ex-husband (Colorado Supreme Court, 2000).

The Statute of Frauds acts as a sort of life insurance for permanent or relatively long term agreements. The portion of the Statute examined herein deals solely with “transfers of real property other than a lease of less than one year’s duration” and the argument is made that the Statute should be extended to include leases less than one year’s duration despite the additional required time, effort and cost. Issues of trespassing, neglect, adverse possession and disputed arguments of sale are identified and the effects of the notions are analyzed though the lens of the Statute’s expectations and requirements for viability. The effects of this specific portion of the Statute of Frauds will be examined in regards

The interest in land is defined as the rights, titles, advantages, duties or liabilities in relation to the land. This allows the holder to have a right over the land formed from an estate although will not provide exclusive possession of the parcel of land. Interest in the land is known to be security for debts (mortgages), easements, restrictive covenants, profit a prendre, and leases.

Under the conditions that a person genuinely believes land is their own and is mistaken, statue law provides an equitable remedy when individuals have invested in “lasting improvements” to the land. The Improvements Under Mistake of Title Act, R.S.S. (1978)

The mortgagor and the mortgagee both have different rights. Section 96(1) LPA gives the mortgagor the right to investigate the deeds and make duplicates, so far it is done at a sensible time and any expenses brought about by the mortgagee are paid. The mortgagee is entitled to ensure the mortgaged land and to charge the premiums to the mortgagor by adding them to the mortgage loan. There are different ways in which a mortgagee can impose his rights which is an ability to recuperate his money from the mortgagor or claim his money. It was held in Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society that a mortgagee cannot be in a

Australian Residential Tenancies Act 1997 details every aspect of landlord tenant relation and lease agreement for caravan park site owners. When we study the situation in case study closely, we notice that in both cases, the tenants may have to involve the court since their situation is tricky and can be better decided by a court dealing with civil matters.

This research is conducted on The Theory of Title: When does title to real property transfer in the State of Arkansas. The research reviews general arguments regarding the three theories of the transfer of title of real property throughout the United States and specifically examines title transfer within the State of Arkansas. The State of Arkansas was selected as the example state because of its proximity to

Being one of the most extensive law reforms of the Law Commission, Land Registration Act 2002 aims to create a flawless legal framework for land registration, especially in terms of conveyancing with emphasis on overriding interests and adverse possession. It is agreed that the Land Registration Act 2002 (hereafter LRA 2002), by putting emphasis on strict registration, moved the idea of land ownership from ownership by possession to bureaucratization of title via registration. Therefore, LRA 2002 is said to bring further strictness and clarity to land ownership and subsequent conveyancing. In conjunction, LRA 2002 was expected to bring an “e-conveyancing revolution” to land registration which was awaited to be a major success. Although steps are taken towards this development, it is claimed that there is still long way to go before a complete and problem-free e-conveyancing system. Apart from matters relating to conveyancing, LRA 2002 consists of sections regarding overriding interests where their number and scope are widely reduced with specifications of registration introduced. Moreover, the Act includes strictly drafted provisions about adverse possession, aiming to bring further restrictions to this matter by bringing further difficulties to the acquisition of title and therefore shifting from a squatter prone approach to a registered owner supporting view.

In Lewisham Borough Council v Roberts[10], a case concerning delegation of power of requisition, Lord Denning affirmed that the Council ”cannot grant a lease or create any legal interest in the land…because it has itself no estate in the land out of which to carve any interest.” More recently, Neuberger J. in Re Friends Provident Life Office[11] reassured “a lease involves not only a contract, but also an estate in land”[12]. Therefore, the traditional concepts are long-standing principle and the possibility of leases existing merely in contractual nature and granting “tenant” merely contractual rights are denied by courts.

The Land Registration Act (LRA) 1925 has drawn much flak over the years with regards to one of its most important provisions on overriding interests (OI), which often goes unnoticed until it swoops up and takes priority over the rights of a future purchaser. These interests often come in the form of other occupiers in the property with an equitable interest and, like in the case of Boland , this leaves the lender in a tight spot when they find out about the existence of these interests only after they have initiate proceedings for possession against the defaulting borrowers. Due to the other occupier’s concealed nature on the property register, the lenders have regained their footing by applying the concept of overreaching and ….. The Law Commission, on the other hand, contemplated abolishing these interest altogether but did not go to that extent because it was neither feasible nor desirable Instead, they shrank their impact on land by reforming the operation and scope of the OI. With LRA 2002 sch 3 para 2, lenders now have more control over what may bite them. …. This essay will access…. with a focus on how the lending world have dealt with the implications of Boland…. The best way to access the impact of … would be to go through the pre – post blabla to show how the thing has balanced.