The issues generated in consideration of the contested property line between Bonnie and Amanda’s property include: i) Conventional boundaries: Does the fence between Bonnie and Amanda’s house constitute a conventional boundary? ii) Improvements by Mistake of Title: Whether the improvements made by Bonnie constitute an entitlement to the land.
i) Conventional Boundaries
In circumstances where the true location of a boundary is unascertainable, the conventional line doctrine provides abutting property owners the ability to create one. After a conventional boundary has been legitimately established, Robertson v. Alberta provides that the property owners maintain the security to rely on the boundary to lawfully develop the land under the
…show more content…
In fact, the previous Kardashian owners assumed that the fence was an accurate indication of the property line, which they thought was located directly between the houses and therefore never attempted to ascertain the actual location of the boundary. If the uncertainty of the boundary was never acknowledged, the principles found in Bea v. Robinson finds that a conventional boundary could not be existing because was no attempt to ascertain the actual boundary. Bea v. Robinson states that this attempt is a mandatory element in the foundation of a conventional boundary. Even in the presence of strong evidence that the boundary was agreed upon and treated as a boundary, it seems likely that the test for conventional boundaries must fail in consideration of the fact that the surveyor Amanda hired was able to ascertain the true boundaries which were not consistent with that of the fence. If the doctrine of conventional lines fails, the “foundational principle” (lecture) of estoppel provides no security for Bonnie in the reliance on the boundary to build. ii) Improvements by Mistake of Title
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 main legal issue to examine regarding this case deals with encroachment, which is simply defined as: A possessory right to the property of another that may be acquired by the passage of time. Crockett has well documented existence of the woodlot property dating back over 20 years and was not met with objection on the part of the Smith, who is the true owner. Due to the fact that the plantiff left the defendant undisturbed for over 20 years, he lost his right to dispute to object the encroachment. Smith would have had to make his objections known regarding Crockett’s occupancy in the log cabin, constructed on his wood lot, many years earlier if he wanted to maintain his right to object.
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.
The iconic movie “The Castle” portrays the issue of land resumption as a story where a little Aussie battler fights against the establishment and wins. However, recent high-profile cases highlight that real-life land acquisitions are far more complex. The north-west rail link in Sydney has resulted in over 1000 people receiving acquisition notices and 30 Brisbane residents will have their houses resumed in order to widen a motorway. Both cases have created considerable confusion and distress for property owners.
Real property rights do in fact serve two valuable goals. First, they prevent rivalrous uses by multiple claimants to a particular piece of property and therefore avoid the tragedy of the commons. Second they allow their owners to invest in improving or developing the property (Lemley, 2005).
3. The judge’s reasons for not granting them the land may have rested on the idea that city's, housing, and peoples lives had already been established in this area, so it would’ve been far too chaotic and unfair to those already living there to ask them to up and leave. People had already bought this land, claimed it, and built on it, thus - with the help of a 90 year gap- it was too late and too insane to give them the
We will discuss the legal issues regarding property ownership, when the original owner has lost, misplaced, or abandoned that property. A particular focus will be to contrast the differences between the laws that regulate federal and private property.
Three plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant who owns one of four connecting parcels of property in the town of South Windsor formerly belongs to a common grantor. The land had a siding that had been in perpetual use by the plaintiffs and their ancestors since 1915, with the title includes an appurtenance to each specific parcel. A spur passage runs from the main line to the eastward position across the defendant's land, and into Quinnipiac Industrial Corporation, one of the plaintiff lands proceed to the north joining land owned by another plaintiff Propane Gas Service, Inc., and within the land of the plaintiff Dunn Brothers, Inc. Until, June 1970, the defendant built a fence and refused the plaintiffs to use the spur passage access to the parcel of
In terms of land, one takes possession of land by improving it. It is owned to
Lucy purchased a block of land which had an easement attached, the issues are whether Benedict currently has a right to use the right of way in the manner he intends to use it, which is for the use of trucks for deliveries for his garden supply business. As well as identifying if Lucy is able to modify or extinguish the easement. The final issue under investigation is whether Benedict had the right to require Lucy to contribute to the reconstruction cost of the easement.
Whether this amounts to a departure from the criteria laid down by Oliver J in Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Victoria Trustees (1982)[2] that a claimant must prove an assurance, a reliance and a detriment in circumstances where it would be unconscionable for the defendant to strictly assert his legal right is crucial in determining the status of proprietary estoppel after Gillett v Holt. Proprietary estoppel has been available as an equitable remedy for decades, performing Equity's duty and intervening in instances where the absence of an informal agreement results in a manifest abuse of legal property rights. An early case that gave it credibility as a legal option was Inwards v. Baker[3] in which a son who had constructed a bungalow on his father's land upon his request and lived in it with his family for over 30 years was granted a licence by estoppel to remain on the land for as long as he desired despite the absence of a written agreement. But it was 85 years before this that the basis upon which a claim for proprietary estoppel could be successful was laid down. In Willmott v Barber (1880)[4], Fry LJ formalised the criteria in the 'five probanda': a) that the claimant must have made a mistake as to their legal rights over some land belonging to
This requirement for a specific assurance narrowed the scope of operation of the doctrine and was inconsistent with previous Court of Appeal decisions such as Gillett v Holt and Jennings v Rice where a claimant had an expectation of a future interest in land.
The ‘bundle of sticks’ metaphor has been utilised for years as a common way to explain the complexities of property ownership in land law. This metaphorical concept was first introduced by Hohfeld, and developed further by numerous realists. In this essay I will describe the advantages and disadvantages of the metaphor as an intellectual construct and academic device and moreover, I will emphasize the metaphor’s deficiencies.
In order to understand the ethical debate of eminent domain, we must first explore how property has been viewed over the centuries from Plato through Jean Jacques Rousseau. It is not the words of these philosophers that creates so much confusion, rather their
‘It is a principle of natural equity which must be universally applicable, that where one man allows another to hold himself out as the owner of an estate and a third person purchases it, for value, from the apparent owner in the belief that he is the real owner, the man who so allows the other to hold himself out shall not be permitted to recover upon a secret title, unless he can overthrow that of the purchaser by showing, either that he had direct notice or something which amounts to constructive notice, of the real title; or that there existed circumstances which ought to
The land registration act 2002 was aimed at implementing the compulsory recording of titles in land, so as to retain the information in one piece, therefore making interest in land simpler to identify. The authors took into consideration the fact that the land register was rather fairly accurate, because despite the mirror principle that the register is a reflection of title, this is not entirely true. In this essay I will show the extent to which the land register is fairly accurate in its registering of titles. Land registration was first operated under the Land registration act 1925. This was the first act, which came into existence before it was repealed and replaced by the LRA 2002.