Guidance Regarding the Legal Predicament - Essay Example

?Madam Mary Stoker Headlong Hall E Madam: This has reference to your request for guidance regarding your legal predicament. You have presented two issues for resolution—first, whether the removal of statues by the former owner freehold, Peter Lee (Lee for brevity), is proper, and second, whether the unregistered agreement between Lee and his friend, Ingrid, for the latter to occupy the West Wing portion of the property is binding to you. The issues shall be tackled sequentially however I would like to re-state the facts to ascertain that we are on the same page. You have purchased in November 4 an absolute freehold property with improvements from Lee which is identified as Headlong Hall estate absolute freehold estate and completed the registration in November 18. The estate includes a gothic house and a ghost train ride which Lee constructed after acquiring the property. The sadly dilapidated and over grown ghost train track was lined with suitably frightening objects including two dozen ghoulish stone statutes some of which have fallen to the ground. Notwithstanding the sad state of the property, you mentioned that you fell in love with the train ride and bowed to restore it when you first looked around the property prior to the purchase agreement. And, as soon as you became the registered proprietor of Headlong Hall estate and after the completion date you immediately moved in. You were horrified to find out that Lee took the statutes with him after you have found out that the statute were the 1967 creation of Bridget Hepworth before she become a famous sculpture and is worth several hundred thousand pounds. After a week in the property you were surprised to find out that Ms Ingrid Cave is occupying the west wing of the Headlong Hall that Mister Peter Lee converted into a separate four-bedroom dwelling. Ms Ingrid Cave claims that Mister Peter Lee has held the West Wing for her in 2004 when she fell on hard times but the agreement was never registered by either of them. She further claimed that her career have taken a turn for the better and she spend most of her time in Mexico where she rents her own flat to explain her 12 month long absence and her irregular presence in Headlong Hall. With regards to the removed Bridget Hepworth carved statutes: I am afraid that Lee is well within his legal rights to remove all movable objects that are not considered permanent fixtures of the property. From your narration, Lee was able to bring the statutes with him when he moved out this indicates that no extra effort can be exerted to remove the statute thus it is considered movable. There was no mention that the purchase price includes the disposition of the statutes even if you mentioned that you fell in love with the ghoulish train ride when you first saw it. The absence of this particular item in your agreement with Lee clearly indicates that all movable objects of the property being bought are not part of the property purchased. At this juncture, I would like to make a distinction between two kinds of properties—real and personal. Real properties refer to lands which include everything attached to it permanently while personal properties are movable properties which are objects other than lands that can be the subject of ownership, examples of which are stocks, money, notes, patents, and copyrights. Let us apply the classification into your situation, the statues were incorporated in the land but it was not permanently affixed to the ground. Thus, by its very nature, it remained a personal property. The rails, on the other hand, are permanent in character so it became part of the estate. Having dispensed with the classification of properties, let us examine the intention of Lee in his act of installing the statues. It is beyond dispute that it was Mister Peter Lee who paid for the construction and installation of the ghoulish train tracks including the setting up of the statutes. This indicates that it was not part of the original property when he acquired it. This indicates that the train tracks are considered improvements although its character changed when it was permanently affixed by Lee on the estate while the statues are considered as mere ornaments. The train track was secured and fastened to the ground by constructing a foundation with substantial depth that it would cause more harm to the structural integrity of the estate if it is removed while the statues were not installed on pedestals or anchored on permanent structures and proof of this is that it was easily removed without any disturbance on the property at all. This is similar to the position taken by our courts with regards to moveable objects of a purchased property. In Berkley v Poulett the court ruled that “statues that are resting under their own weight are considered not part of a property”1. It is clear that Lee owns the Bridget Hepworth statutes and it could be gleaned that it was not his intention to part with the statues at all owing to the temporary nature thereof, the statues retained its personal property character and more importantly, he retained ownership over all personal properties which he owned at the time when you reached an agreement. It is clear that you only purchased the Headlong Hall estate this would include the manor and the grounds of which dimension and size is mentioned in the title. The statutes are not part of the Headlong Hall estate since it is owned and was installed by Lee for his own purpose and enjoyment. Therefore, the statutes are not included in what you have purchased. When Lee vacated Headlong Hall estate, he has the right to take all his earthly possessions that were not bolted to the ground since these are not part of what you have purchased, sad to say, including the Bridget Hepworth statues. On the other hand, since the ghoulish train tracks are bolted to the ground to make it safe and secure for it to be used properly, it is considered an immovable permanent improvement to the Headlong Hall estate that cannot be taken by its Mister Peter Lee. The removal of the train tracks would not only cause permanent damage to the facade of Headlong Hall estate the grounds where the tracks are bolted to the ground would also be rendered unsafe. In Elitestone v Morris, the court considered improvements that are fixed to the ground as part of the land. “It appears that, if an object cannot be removed from the land except by destruction, it has become part and parcel of the land”2. Considering that Lee has let the Bridget Hepworth statues and the ghoulish train ride in disarray may be an indication that he was not aware of its value. Since you yourself have not had any idea at the time of your negotiation of its true value and if only for your fondness of the entire ghoulish train ride it would have been prudent if you have included all the fixtures in the negotiations and put in writing your agreed terms. Raising it now, considering your knowledge of its true and current value may be perceived as bad faith. With regards to Ms Ingrid Cave: You may demand for her to vacate the property and this is well within your right to do so. Despite Ms Ingrid Cave’s claims, she should have asserted her legal rights when Lee gave her the property. Lee has had ample time to convey the property to Cave from the time when the alleged agreement occurred up to the time Mister Peter Lee sold the property to you. Under Section 4 of the Land Registration Act of 2002, my apologies for making reference to the law, it is compulsory to register an estate even if the freehold estate has been given as gift or other circumstances (Parliament of the United Kingdom). Cave’s claims that the West Wing was given to her by Lee would qualify under this provision, however, since Lee or Cave failed to register the transaction that would convey a portion of the West Wing over to Cave, the oral agreement cannot be invoked to you as the new owners of Headlong Hall Estate. Oral agreements cannot be enforced more especially since the subject of the alleged agreement in this case is a real right. Even on the assumption that there is an agreement between Lee and Cave, the legal process to convey the property to Cave was not accomplished by Lee hence Cave claim to the property is without basis. The legal process to convey is quite strict and non-compliance with the requirements renders the disposition or conveyance unenforceable. It is reiterated that the basis of their agreement was predicated on Lee’s ownership of the estate. However when the estate was transferred to you, any oral agreement between them is terminated and under no circumstances should you feel obligated to honour such commitment. Cave cannot similarly claim that such commitment is transferrable to you as the new owner of Headlong Hall estate. Furthermore, Lee did not disclose that he has made commitments or arrangement with regards to the property that could have had a bearing in your price negotiations with him since the property being sold has somewhat been diminished. Lee’s lack of candour is indicative of bad faith. Equally, his failure to disclose this information indicates that the price he quoted included the entire estate as indicated in the freehold title. In this regard, you are under no obligation to honour Lee’s agreement with Cave—it was binding between them only. And, since the agreement is between Lee and Cave, the remedy of Cave, should she seek restitution, is against Lee and not with you. Any arrangement or agreement between Lee and Cave pertaining the continuous use of the west wing is between them and should you wish to take on Cave as your tenant, you may negotiate based on your own terms only. It should likewise be noted that Lee has grown a fondness to Cave, and it would appear that he felt sorry for Cave’s predicament when she fell on hard times. The fact that Lee failed to register the conveyance reveals that he could not have intended the arrangement to be permanent as well. Lee may have been overcome by his emotion at that time for a fellow artist and has allowed Cave to stay at the West Wing temporarily. This fondness according to your narration may have translated to some paper or instrument that conveys the property to Cave during the time when she was still on hard times however her failure to present any document clearly negates this supposition. According to your narration, Lee has promised Cave that she will always have a place in the West Wing—again, this does not indicate permanent arrangement. There are three issues at hand emanating from Cave’s occupation of the West Wing. First, from the facts of the case it would seem that it was Lee who has paid for the transformation of the West Wing into a liveable abode for Cave. Second, it would also seem that Cave was allowed to occupy the West Wing because she fell on hard times. The third is on the issue of the instrument being created that reflects the agreement of Lee and Cave conveying the West Wing to her. However, the last and third issue have been settled above. In your discussion with Cave, she has admitted that her career have turned for the better and have been for the past several months. The circumstances that led Lee to allow her to stay at the West Wing do not exist anymore. It would seem therefore that her continued stay at the West Wing is not warranted anymore. Cave also cannot claim ownership of the West Wing and the improvements there, since it was clear that it was Lee who have spent and converted the West Wing into a liveable abode for Cave. Even Cave can claim that the West Wing could not have been converted into a liveable abode if not for her stay the improvements made by Lee there is considered part and parcel of Headlong Hall estate. Mister Peter Lee did not dismantle the improvements nor did he bring it with him when he vacated the property. When the property was sold in its entirety by Lee, it is assumed that the property and all its registered encumbrances are also absorbed. Since the agreement between Cave and Lee was not registered or was the Headlong Hall estate were partitioned to reflect the agreement between Cave and Lee. And, the purchase agreement between you and Mister Peter Lee do not include the agreement between Mister Peter Lee and Ms Ingrid Cave. The option to evict Ms Ingrid Cave from West Wing remains an option that you can exercise at any time. However, it would prudent to inform Cave of your intention at the soonest possible time. Prudence also dictates that an agreement between you and Cave should be reduced into writing and signed to clarify the status and condition of her continued stay in West Wing. Signed: Your Solicitor References: Berkley v Poulett and othes. No. EWCA Civ 1; [1977] 1 EGLR 86; (1977) 241 EG 911. Court of Appeals. 1976. Electronic Source. Elitestone v Morris. No. ER 513. 1997. Electronic. Parliament of the United Kingdom. "Land Registration Act of 2002." An Act to make provision about land registration and for connected purposes. England and Wales: Parliament of the United Kingdom, 26 February 2002. Electronic. Part 2: Formalities into contractual obligations as required by law are instituted to protect the interest of both parties3. The nuances and different interpretation of the real intent and meaning of the words uttered in oral contracts could be plainly interpreted and explained through the formality of a written contract4. The responsibilities of each party are not only defined in contracts, it also set the criteria from which performance of each party to perfect the contract is also laid out. The rights and duties of each party are also spelled out in contract that there is no room for misinterpretation. Negotiations with regards to the limitations and acceptance of these duties and responsibilities can also be laid out in contracts. Therefore when parties affix their signatures as part of the requirement to perfect a contract, it is understood that both parties are in agreement and that both parties fully understand their roles as specified in the contracts they have formulated between themselves. The evidentiary value of written instruments in the court of law not only outweighs any testimonial evidence, written contracts tend to be exact and not be subject to the opinion and biases of testimonial evidences. Cold facts are not only presented but their unbiased representation of the actual agreement is laid out plainly. Misunderstandings as to the real intent of each party are also threshed out when contracts are written and agreed upon by both parties as signified by their signatures. In the sale or conveyance of lands written contracts are not only necessary to ensure that all the party’s intention and desires are written in the contract. The perfection of such contracts is predicated to the performance of each party that will satisfy the desire of each. Formalities are therefore required before a transfer of the ownership of the property can be registered. It should be noted that the registry of titles is the prima facie evidence of the ownership of any property. Therefore, the circumstances of any transfer of ownership need to be defined if not itemized to ensure that the transfer was not predicated on fraud or force. These circumstances are often laid out in contracts agreed and signed by all parties involved. The Law Commission Report of 1987 number 164 entitled “Transfer of Land Formalities for Contracts of Sale Etc. of Land” read in part “In view of… the complexities and uncertainties as well as the potential for injustice section 40 would appear ripe for reform”. Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provision) Act of 1989 tries to respond to the Law Commission’s Report. The section mandates that before a sale or disposition of an interest in land can be perfected a written document that incorporates all the terms each party have expressly agreed on shall be accomplished and signed by all parties concerned. A Deed cannot be considered a deed if on its face it is not written that it is a deed or its description do not describe it as a deed. A deed should be validly executed as a deed by the person or the party executing the deed5. An instrument or deed should be signed by the person executing the document in the presence of at least two witnesses that can attest to the veracity of the signature of the person or persons executing the deed. The sign of the person can either be in a form of a signature or the personal mark of the person executing the deal as attested to by the parties acting as witnesses. The above interpretations of Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1989 have removed the complexities and uncertainties of the various instruments and attestation of agreements between two parties that conveys properties from one person or party to another. The predicate of any transfer as enunciated in Section 2 would be the Deed that specify among other things the condition and circumstances that would satisfy the perfection of any contract between two parties prior to a transfer of any land6. The inclusion of witnesses that not only authenticate the existence and the agreement but also validly authenticate the affixation of each party’s signature is an added protection to all parties concerned. Any process or machination that aims to protect the interest of the public and or each party transacting commerce between them is for the protection of all. The clarity, completeness, consistency and correctness of the instruments are not only attested to by witnesses the process will also do justice in the protection of the individual rights of each party concerned7. Section two has specified these intricacies in detail to ensure its compliance. Its strict compliance would therefore translate to injustices being committed by one party against another. Taking the requirements of Section 2 as well as the process in which the agreement or deed are made indicates that each party privy to the deed and its execution have exhaustively been informed of their rights, obligations and duties so far as the contract or deed is concerned8. To elucidate, it is required that both parties agree on the terms and condition that will lead to the perfection of the deed before an actual contract can be signed between the two parties. During the pendency of the process or at the time when both parties are being informed of the terms and condition acceptable to the other party each party can have the option to negotiate for more particulars that is more favourable to him. In the same manner, it is also incumbent upon each party to ensure that their rights and interest are protected in the final version of the contract. Given these conditions, it is likely that a vigilant party would be able to spot provisions that are inimical to his or her interest. Justice is therefore achieved if both parties are vigilant in protecting their rights that is within the spirit of equality and the law. The final version of the contract or the conveyance of a deed that will trigger the transfer of any property should therefore contain all the agreed requirements to perfect the contract or the deed to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. Partial performance can only be allowed if it is expressly provided for in the contract or deed. Other nuances such as prior unwritten but verbal agreements should also be detailed and made plainly clear in the contract. Therefore the contract or deed executed and signed by all parties concerned contains all the acceptable parameters that would satisfy all parties. Therefore, any claims to injustices will be defeated since each party have signed or personally marked the deed as required by the law. Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 19899 have made the requirements of any transfer of land or any property clearer to understand, consistent and discourages injustice. The requirements as spelled out in the law made the contract or deed much stronger with the inclusion of witnesses that could attest to the existence of the contracts and confirm the personality of the parties affixing their signature on the deed or contract. In conclusion, the report made by the Law Commission with regards to the total repeal of Section 40 of The Law of Property Act of 1925 have been effectively been addressed by the Law of Property of 1989 when it superseded Section 40 in its entirety10. Any common law or ruling that was in effect have also been repealed or abolished such as Bain v Fothergill when the Property Law of 1989 took effect. It has indeed remedied any legal infirmity with respect to conveyances and property ownership11. Read More