English Land Law, Meadow Farm - Essay Example

Task Land Law Introduction English land law is normally guided by a number of law and rules. The 1925 reforms were repealed by the land listing Act 2002 in order to simplify matters relating to land but most important the problems that relate to third party warrants (Claire, 2008). However, the other parts remain essentially similar. There are rules that warrant an individual right over their property and permits them to alter several aspects of the property at will. Normally, we gain property without proper guidelines as we take the role of ignorance due to improper guidelines. A property possessed by an individual via the legal provision of the government holds several legal clauses that bind the owner to the government policies. Knowledge of the law and the clauses it presents in property guide and ownership holds a major fraction in maintaining order after property acquisition. My essay is centered on two cases that depict instances that land laws require careful consideration before judgment is issued on rightful ownership. Part A Bramble farm The coming into force of the LRA (2002) signifies a change from a system of registration of title to a system where registration gives a person title to the land (Gatty, 2003). Previously, what were used were the 1925 reforms, which proved to be cumbersome and sometimes problematic. 1. Therefore, in the case of Rose, she was a previous co-owner to the land but her name was not included on the register as a co-proprietor, which in itself raises problems. Under the old system, a purchaser of land bound whether or not he had notice of the existence of such interest1 but it depended on whether the interest was commercial or family in nature. Where it was commercial interest, the interest could not shift to the purchaser when it came to selling that land.2 In this case, Mr. Hay would not be bound by the understanding in two parties, as he was not privy to it. 2. When it comes to the matter of executable deed where Mr. Wood had a six-year lease, the law stipulates that where there is a legal lease even though not registered, it would bind Mr. Hay as an overriding interest within schedule 3 paragraph 1.3 Woods contract though not protected by the register would still be binding as an overriding interest within schedule 3 paragraph 2 (LRA, 2002), and that would be if woods was actually occupying the said cottage. However, since he never occupied it his interest in that land would cease to exist and the leasehold giving him the option to buy freehold of the cottage will not suffice. 3. In the case of right of easement or right of way, the law recognizes the right of a third party over somebody else’s land and it does not matter for whatever reason it maybe. This law applied to both lands when focusing on their registry. In this case, Mr. Plant and his predecessor have been using the outbuilding as a short cut. Common law stipulates that where a user is of right and is in continuous usage of that way then he acquires the right of way and it does not matter whether he had permission or not (Smith, 2000). 4. Fixtures and fittings that are on the land become part of the land in that the proprietor and subsequent buyer of the land own them. Chattels, themselves, remain moveable property that do not attain and so are not part of the integral heritable property. Therefore, where there is no express agreement in the contract of sale that the chattels will remain, they may be removed from the land without any right of recourse (Saton, 2000). In order to determine whether an item is a fixture, the initial assessment is whether it is physically attached to the land. This includes plumbing, shelving and heating but not items that are resting on the land, such as statutes.4 The second assessment is the purpose of attachment whether it is for the enjoyment of the item or for purposes of improving the land. In D'Eyncourt v Gregory it was established that ornaments and strategically placed seating, as well as two statutes of lions in a hall, did form part of the landscaping for the purpose of improvement of the property. The elephant had been used as a trophy and a means to differentiate his property from the surrounding farms. This had definitely been a part of the legacy that the predecessor held hence a need to further posses it to remember the lost land. Therefore, in the case of Mr. Hay the elephant statute did not form part of the land as it was on the land and was not for the purpose of improving the land but rather for the purpose of enjoyment and so retrieving the elephants would not be possible. Part B Meadow Farm When it comes to unregistered land, it offers less protection like the registered landowner. 1. In the case where there is a restrictive covenant attached to the enjoyment of a specified land it will normally profit the owners and occupiers in the meantime being of all part of that land. Benefit of such covenant will not permit if it is clearly limited to the land while it rests unsold, or if it stipulates that passing is to be by express assignment. In the case of Mr. Potter, there was a restrictive covenant and unless the covenant expressly stipulated that the subsequent owners would be bound by that covenant then it would not be binding to him. The covenant must stipulate that subsequent buyers will be bound by it. The Sugarman case is the leading case when it comes to restrictive covenants.5 Parties ought to make it clear as to what they intend to concerning benefit of the covenant, in most cases the court will be very reluctant in going against limitations stated in the document. 2. Under the Land Registration Act (2002), “leases for more than seven years must be registered and they override first registrations.” In the case of tenancy it falls under the category of lease and where it exists, it is binding on any subsequent purchaser since the land is unregistered. Tenant occupation is notice of all tenants’ rights.6 In Boland`s case it was stated: “Even in the case of unregistered land, the presence of the vendor in occupation does not exclude the possibility of occupation by others”7 Therefore, the tenant does not automatically surrender any rights granted to them for the benefit of the leasehold property, the right may continue to exist and be exercised by the occupier of the estate for the period for which they were granted.8 In this case, the interest of the two occupiers will be taken into account and Mr. Corn ought to have had prior knowledge of such existence. However, this creates problems as he might have been led to believe the land was not in occupation to which there is no recourse to that.9 3. When it comes to the issue of Heather who entered into a contract with farmer field, it does not grant her right of easement as that was a private arrangement between her and the previous owner. For easement to exist there has to be a dominant and serviette tenement connection in which in this case it does not exist. Mr. Corn was not privy to that contract and so it will not be binding him as far as the land is concerned. He has the discretion of either refusing heather from using the road or allows her to continue using it and still pay what she used to pay. 4. In the case where land co-owned with a relative who was dependent on such land, the law is that the dependent has equitable interest over such land.10 Therefore, in the case of Daisy, she had family interest over the piece of land and so the proceeds of sale should be given to her. She can sue on that, as the land was also her home as she had overreaching interest in that land, the proceeds would have enabled her find another home11 and so she is entitled to such proceeds otherwise Mr. Corn would be liable. Conclusion These two cases have presented different scenarios where the land laws governing the countries could be applied in solving complex cases. Though not all expectations are normally achieved, the legal ownership of the land rests with the legal documentation of ownership. With the accurate knowledge of the desired rules in land ownership, individuals may avoid serious cases of faulty claims in land ownership. However, some of these rules normally fail to apply to structural property existing on the land12. There exists a separate law against permanent structures and physical features that may be found in the land area. Every legally owned property requires proper documentation and legal procedures in attaining their ownership. These attributes are required to be legally registered and careful documentation done to provide evidence during future disputes that may occur. A better advice in dealing with legal matters especially property ownership would entail employing a legal representative who is well acquitted with the constitution to aid in explaining the difficult clauses. Bibliography (2008), Land Law 2: The 1925 Reforms and Unregistered Land Law, google documents, retrieved 7th January 2012, from: . Sarton, P. (2000), Conveyancy, 3rd Edition, Florence, Macmillan Law Masters. Smith R., (2000), Property law, 3rd Edition, London, Longman. Smith, H. and Merrill, T., (2000), Optimal Standardization in the Law of Property: The Numerous Clausus principle, Google documents, retrieved 7th January 2012, from: Read More