Some Issues in Land Law - Coursework Example

?LAND LAW TERM PAPER 8TH JANUARY 1650 WORDS OF THE NUMBER Part A: Bramble Farm case. Issues under conflictMr. Hay purchased Bramble farm without clear understanding of issues arising later like: (i) Rose; another partner in the land contributed half the purchase price. (ii) Mr. Wood has a six year lease to the cottage of the farm though he has never lived there. Further the lease allows him to buy the freehold on sale of the farm. (iii) There is a shortcut in the land used by neighbours to the local pub and they claim to have prior right to its use and will continue using it. (iv) Removal of ornamental bronze statue of an African elephant and its plinth after contract exchange but before completion date. Mr. Hay without prior knowledge of the impending outcomes went ahead and acquired Bramble Farm from Mr. Major Thorn. He failed to ascertain the legality of the ownership of the land by Major Thorn from the land registry offices which could have helped him get a clear copy of the any other owner of the land. According to Land Registration Rules 2003,1 inspection of the land ownership is allowed to ascertain true ownership. The above issues ought to be dealt accordingly as discussed below so as Mr. Hay remains the legal and owner of Bramble farm, without impending conflicts. Rose having been in possession for ownership for the Land for a similar period as Major Thorn has equal rights to the land and therefore was legal entity that could have been consulted prior to the sale agreement. According to the Land Registration Act 2002,2 Rose having in possession of the land for more than ten years is deemed by law as a legal partner in the farm. The advantage with Mr. Hay is that according to the land registry document, Rose is not recognised as a proprietor; therefore, Mr. Hay has no legal obligation binding him towards the claimed contribution towards the purchase of the land. Having no legal registration of the land only means that Rose is obligated to his partner and therefore cannot claim anything from the new owner. On the same note, transfer by way of exchange is legally binding and this confirms Mr. Hay the new owner of the land.3 Since the new ownership has been entered into the registry office, Rose has no right to object the application as evidenced clearly with Lobatiers v Mornington Estates UK Ltd case.4 The lease to Mr. Wood is a major issue that needs to be dealt legally. According to section 60(1) of the land registration rules 2003, the leasehold ought to have been transferred with regard to the new owner of the farm.5 With no prior clear information regarding the agreement of the leasehold, and the agreement of sale of the cottage in the event of ownership exchange: Mr. Hay has the right to sue Major Thorn of not disclosing all the information regarding the registration of ownership of the land. This will make sure he is reimbursed the damages he will encounter in the event of selling the cottage. According to the Baxter v. Mannion [2010] EWHC (Ch),6 since Mr. Wood has not been in possession of the lease for a period of ten years, he has no legal right to claim ownership of the cottage with regard to his agreement to the old owner. Critically analyzing the case of use of shortcut, to the local pub by the neighbours, it is imperative that the new owner comes out clearly on the private property ownership rights.7 As a matter of facts, being the current and legal owner of the Bramble Farm, Mr. Hay has the right to use the portion of the land at his swill. Therefore, the neighbor is not right by claiming he has the right to pass through the shortcut without the permission of the new owner on the basis that he had per mission from the former. According to section 118 of the Land Registration rules 2003 to acquire a legal determination of the exact line of boundary.8 These will culminate to the acquiring of a plan, or a plan and a verbal description of the exact boundary to the farm. Further, Mr. Hay should erect a fence or a barrier to the side where the land is being used for short cut purposes thus, ensuring more privacy and whoever passes through the area charged with trespass.9 Whenever transfer of land occurs, whether wholly or partially as per the rules in section 58 of the Land Registration, Rule 59 (2), clearly states that the transfer takes into effect together with the property therein with regard to the description of the agreement.10 Owing to the statue being part of the property in the land, prior to the exchange, and consequently being removed in the process of the contract (though exchange of contract had taken place) means that Major Thorn was contravening the contract and using trickery to take off with some of the property in the land. Since the statue has been in the land for decades, it automatically qualifies to be part of the land and can be termed as a “private” landmark, therefore, prior to its removal, the old owner to the land was bound to state clearly in the contract that he ought the statue be his property. Therefore, following legal procedure, Mr. Hay is bound to get the statue back to the land. Part B: Meadow Farm case. Mr. Corn bought the farm from Field while it was unregistered and he intends to open an organic cafe in the grounds. This clearly shows that the new owner ought to seek for first registration in the course of transfer to legally acquire documentary evidence that he is the rightful owner. This is in effect to the Land Registration rules 2003; 38(1).11 Issues at hand: The land was sold for residential purposes only thus Mr. Corn cannot open a cafe. There are two more occupiers in the land; one Mr. Leek occupying the small flat on monthly tenancy granted three years ago and Mr. Root, the local mechanic with a 25 year lease of an outbuilding in the grounds which are valid until 2021. Heather a neighbour, has a right way to a driveway across Meadow Farm. Daisy; granny to Farmer Field paid a third of the purchase price and lives in the farm for the past nine years. According to the first owner, Mr. Porter; who in the case at hand transfer will be effective from, he had an agreement barring any future owners to the land to the introduction of any economic activities in the land. The land is to be used for residential purposes only. Referring to The Land Registration Rules 2003, section 5 clearly states what should be described of in the registered estate.12 Further, rule 5(b) clearly indicates that all exceptions ought to state clearly in the contents of the property register. Therefore, if the exception to the land only being used for residential purposes is clearly stated in the contents of the property register, Mr. Corn is bound not to initiate a cafe in the land. Concerning the two occupiers in the land, Mr. Corn has no obligation to them, as there was no transfer of leasehold that was done effective with new ownership.13 Farmer Field having no legal registration to the land cannot claim to have entered into legal leases with the two. Therefore, being the new and rightful owner to the land, Mr. Corn has the right to disapprove the existence of the leases on the ground that they were not mentioned in the transfer contract. As per the contents of property in the land Registration Rules,14 these could have been stated as the exceptions whereby, the flat behind the stables and the outbuilding could have been stated to be on three year monthly tenancy and 25-year lease respectively. On the same note, rule 6 clearly indicates that sufficient particulars to registered leasehold must be present and clearly identified.15 The law clearly identifies that no person should be deprived of their right to their property without due process of law. Therefore, Mr. Corn being the rightful owner and the two temporary claimed owners has an obligation to their rights. The exception comes in with the failure of the new contract recognizing the temporary owners and thus they are only bound with the old contract and the old owner.16 The conflict driveway use by the neighbour, Mr. Heather is of essence as it ought to have come up in the contract and during transfer. Having an agreement with the prior owner ought to have stipulated clearly the payment and conditions for use of the driveway in the future. Since the agreement was not entered in the current ownership, Mr. Corn is not bound whatsoever by the mere agreement. This can amount to Heather being accused of trespass under section 61 CJPOA (Stones: 8-24900).17 The signing of the form having been done in the period less than ten years; Heather cannot claim to have acquired outright use to the driveway automatically. He ought to recognise the existence of the new owner and enter into a fresh agreement for use of the driveway. This clearly does not bind Mr. Corn Whatsoever to the third party right of using the driveway. The emergence of Farmer Field Grandmother seems to be an extra headache to the new owner to the land. The fact that the grandmother contributed towards the purchase of the land gave her partial right to own the land. The unfortunate thing to the old lady is that she has no legal document to ascertain her claim. On the same note, according to the case Baxter v. Mannion [2010] EWHC (Ch),18 having lived in the farm for a period of less than ten years does not give her automatic right to claim for ownership Bibliography John Duddington, Land Law, Washington, Trans-Atlantic Publishing, Feb 25, 2009. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice,Vol 7, issue 1, Oxford Journals 2012, Accessed from http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/ Land registration Ac t 2002. Retrieved from http://www.propertylawuk.net/adversepossessionsquatters.html The Land Registration Rules 2003, Retrived online from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/1417/article/18/made Trespass and Nuisance on land accessed from the web of CPS 2012, retrieved on January 8, 2012 from http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/trespass_and_nuisance_on_land/ Read More