Land Law - Proprietary Estoppel

The word adverse possession is a term used in real esate to describe taking of land, and not paying for it.

Should the United States government be allowed to seize property from you without any explanation or compensation? That is a question many people in the U.S. are asking themselves today. Eminent domain should not be allowed in the United States for several reasons. People own buildings that they do not want destroyed because they are family dwellings or places of business. People have money invested in the buildings and the property they sit on and do not feel it is right to lose it to the government. There are also the property owners who want to protect their property because it has been handed down in their family for many generations.

The Plaintiff contests that orders to restrain the Plaintiff’s land use [8] by Pain J in the Land and Environment Court of NSW in 2005 constituted the ‘violation of correct legal procedures’ [14] and hence professional negligence, because the case was previously dismissed by Lloyd J [5].

This function of the law, ensuring reasonable predictability in daily life, is challenged within this case. This is shown within the case, from the perspective of being the owners of

Proprietary estoppel, on the other hand, is a “legal bar preventing a (first) party from denying another (second) party's right in first party's property where the second party has incurred costs in that property to its detriment”. Proprietary estoppel, like other types of estoppel, is not a remedy in itself but a tool to raise “estoppel equity”, on the basis of which the court is able to decide on the type of remedy that this equity will satisfy. Similarly to the need for the element of common intention for the purpose of establishing a constructive trust, there is a need for the establishment of an active or passive assurance on the part of the defendant that leads to some form of consequential detriment on the part of the claimant when acting in reliance on that assurance. Thus, there must be a causal connection between the actions undertaken by the claimant and the initial assurance on the part of the defendant. The extent and the nature of the detriment suffered by the claimant, however, appears to be substantially more flexible than that necessary to find the existence of a constructive trust. For example, in Inwards v Baker [1965], such detriment amounted to the improvement of the defendant’s land, while in Gillett v Holt [2001] it was manifested in both financial and personal detriment. Yet unlike in most cases involving common intention constructive trusts, in neither of

The taking of land refers “to government seizure, regulation, or intrusion on private property for which the owner is entitled to compensations under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). There is also regulatory takings, which is the “newly enforceable restrictions on the use of ones property, such as a newly adopted restrictions on building in certain areas of wetlands.” (Halbert, Terry, Inguilli, & Elaine, 2012). All over the world governments take private land from its owners to benefit the public. In the United States it is called emanated domain, and has been a controversial issue till this day. By evaluating the case of Lucas V South Carolina Coastal Council of 1992 and evaluating the two types of regulatory action that automatically trigger compensation as takings; the dissent object to the takings approach laid out by the majority in this case; cities ability to take private property and transfer it to private developers for the sake of economic revitalization; the ethical issues surrounding the principle of using eminent domain to take away the property ownership rights of individuals; and the feeling I would have if the government was to take my land.

In the mid-1700’s, not many people were granted the rights that they deserved. Of these rights, only few could vote and few could be educated. It was typical that white men were allowed to vote and were given the opportunity to become educated. This angered those who lacked these rights, which resulted in uproars within the nation. In an essay from a Maryland newspaper, a discussion of the injustice between owning land and having the right to vote is debated. Benjamin Rush wrote thoughts about giving women the chance at education. Living in the New World meant having rights as citizens and expressing instances of disagreement.

Eminent domain is where the government has the power to take a private property and convert that into a public property, but the government can only exercise this power if they provide the just amount of compensation to those property owners. This is the main concept however each state has its own laws. In Missouri it’s now a little stricter when they revised their laws in 2006 to make it more balanced to protect the private property rights of an owner and as well as the need for cities to eliminate the blight conditions. The term “public use” differs between states for what a government can take and use for public use purposes. In the state of Missouri the term “public use” can be taking land to build public roads, to taking land for use by private railroad companies, and to taking land to build private businesses to spur the economic growth (Missouri law review 1). The government can only use eminent domain where there are blight conditions, which in Missouri; blight is property which constitutes an economic or social liability or menace to public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use (Law of Missouri 2). Most states have the just compensation towards the private property owners as giving them compensation that is market value for their property. Missouri generally appoints three commissioners to report of any damages that the owner suffers as a result of the

See Farias v. Vera, No. 13-09-00301, 2010 WL 24232096 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi June 17, 2010); Madison, 39 S.W.3d 604. Although Carter technically shared the land with Ron Stanton, the manner in which he had used the land, coupled with the fact that his usage of the land had indeed been observed by the subsequent purchase, rationally imposes a duty to inquire upon the subsequent purchaser where Farias and Madison had not. See Farias, 2010 WL 24232096; Madison, 39 S.W.3d 604. This key difference exists because Carter’s productive usage of the land implies that he possesses a “visible, open, exclusive, and unequivocal” right to the land; thereby triggering the subsequent purchaser’s duty to inquire. Storm 2007 WL 2204170 (citing Strong, 98 S.W.2d 346, 348-350). Conversely, the subjects of Farias and Madison, who are merely rentees, have insufficient basis to meet the aforementioned requirement which triggers the duty to inquire. See Farias, 2010 WL 24232096; Madison, 39 S.W.3d

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

The High Court has as of late considered the fraud special case to indefeasibility of title of land possession in the case of Cassegrain v Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd. The decision permits a wife to keep a half benefit for a dairy farm property in spite of paying no thought for it and just being the beneficiary of that intrigue due to her spouse 's fraud. The misfortune here is the party denied of a benefit for the land by fraud, while the victor is obviously the unwitting beneficiary of that interest.

These days there have been many issues surrounding the topic of private property and eminent domain. I feel that eminent domain is a good way to keep the needs of the community and each person’s individual property rights balanced. Even though I believe individual property rights are more important that the needs of the community, I also believe the government sometimes has to take that property away for the better good of the community. At the same time I also understand how people feel when they talk about “NIMBY” (not in my back yard), and also about their personal needs.

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

To fully understand the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls Ltd [1989] on the doctrine of consideration, its is important to examine the doctrine more closely. Traditionally, modern English law has largely abandoned the benefit/detriment analysis and prefers the definition provided by Sir Federick Pollock that “consideration may be defined as an act of forbearance of one party, or the promise thereof, being the price for which the promise of the others is

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.