Land Law and Human Rights - Essay Example

?Land Law Table of Contents Introduction 3 Discussion 3 The Nature of the Interests Claimed 3 Advice to Glen 6 Conclusion 8 References 8 Bibliography11 Introduction In the referred case scenario, based on land law, Glen McDonald has been reported to have purchased a property named Rosebud Cottage, which is situated in Warrington. The property transaction took place for a price of ?250,000 by Glen, from Clifton Jacobs and Barbara Jacobs. As per the case particulars, the title to Rosebud Cottage is legally registered at the Land Registry with Freehold Absolute. Additionally, the copy of the Title Register was obtained before the purchase was made by Glen. After the purchase of the land, certain claims were made by different parties, to which Glen was presumed to be unaware of. In this paper, various aspects as relevant to the justification of the claims, under the provisions of Land and Property Act 1925, Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Land Registration Act 2002 and Rent Charge Act 1977, will be discussed. Accordingly, following the elaboration of every detail related to the claims made, Glen will be adviced that are binding with the property. Subsequently, claims made unjustifiably will also be explained in a rational way hereunder. Discussion The Nature of the Interests Claimed After the purchase of Rosebud Cottage by Glen, Abdullah approached Glen and stated that he had a contract with Clifton and Barbara previously, which Glen was incidentally unaware of. However, the contract amid Clifton and Barbara and Abdullah was withdrawn by Abdullah himself due to low price. Subsequently, Abdullah is claiming that the contract made between Clifton, Barbara and him, should be compensated by Glen. The claim made by Abdullah in this context can be affirmed as inappropriate as the contract was between him and Clifton and Barbara. Moreover, the contract made between the owners and Abdullah were not legally exchanged as Abdullah’s counter offer to reduce the price charged on the property transaction was refused by the other parties. Hence, the contract shall not be deemed valid in this context as per Part II: Contracts, Conveyances and other Instruments of the Law of Property Act 19251;2. The second claim has been made by Henrietta who resides in a house located near Rosebud Cottage and is a neighbour to Glen. It was when Henrietta came to know that Glen has planned to expand the property by further two-storey extension, she claims her rights as per the provisions prescribed for restrictive covenants as per the Land Registration Act 2002. In this regard, Henrietta stated that the property is subjected to restrictive covenant rights, which signifies that there can be no modification in the property without her approval. Conceptually, a restrictive covenant is recognised as a promise imposed by one individual to another to restrict buyers from causing harm to the land purchased as per the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. In this respect, Henrietta as a covenant has a right to restrict Glen from altering the property [Crest Nicholson Residential (South) Limited v McAllister [2004] 1 WLR 2409]3. However, Henrietta is required to possess a written deed stating that she is entrusted with the provision of ensuring the protection of the property from harm on the basis of seller4;5. Chelsea is the third individual making a claim to Glen that the property has been leased to her for a period of three years. In this regard, she also produced a document with the signature of Clifton and Barbara that it was signed in the month of July in the year 2013 and that the lease period will commence from 1st January 2014. The lease agreement with Chelsea implies that the real property has been transferred to her for a term of three years. In this respect, Glen may lose the property but could adopt certain legal measures and steps with the intention of obtaining compensation on the paid amount i.e. ?250,000 in the property transaction with Clifton and Barbara apart from enforcing other related legal measures for fraudulence practices under section 54(2) of the Law of Property Act 19256;7 and Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 [Helden v Strathmore Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 542]8. The fourth claim was made by Pay-easy Loans Limited against Glen to repay loan amount of ?10,000 on the mortgage on Rosebud Cottage. It is noteworthy in this context that the loan was sanctioned to Clifton and Barbara. Correspondingly, the creditor company produced the legal deed, which was made during the year 2009. The legal deed provided the details of the claims that are made by the company. In this regard, the company possess the legitimate right to have their claims of ?10,000 or otherwise will have right of ownership on Rosebud Cottage under section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 [Kinane v Mackie-Conteh [2005] EWCA Civ 45]9. The last claim made to Glen was by Emma, the niece of Barbara. Emma claimed that Rosebud Cottage was held as a trust by Clifton and Barbara for her, which subsequently, questions the legitimacy of Glen possessing the property. Additionally, in this regard, she stated that she was not provided with any benefits from the sale of the property, which also binds Glen to suffice the due requisites. Respectively, it can be affirmed that Emma, if proved to be the niece of Barbara and the beholder of the property trust, possesses complete rights to make a claim against the property so that she could receive her benefits as can be observed with reference to Healey v Brown [2002] EWHC 1405 (Ch) and Fry v Densham-Smith [2010] EWCA Civ 1410 under section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 198910. Advice to Glen In summary, Glen has been approached by several parties claiming their respective interests from the property transaction. In this concern, there are certain legal procedures on the basis of which the rights of Glen and needs of the claimants can be settled appropriately. For instance, Land Title is registered under Clifton Jacobs and Barbara Jacobs at the Land Registry with Freehold Absolute. A copy of the Title Register was obtained before the purchase. The Title Register signifies the legality of the transfer of the property from Clifton and Barbara to Glen. Contextually, the claim made by Abdullah shall be treated as void concerning the fact that the contractual agreement between Clifton and Barbara and Abdullah had been withdrawn on the grounds of low price by Abdullah. Subsequently, the counter offer made by Abdullah was rejected by Clifton and Barbara, which makes the claim void as per the Land and Property Act 2002. Hence, it can be inferred that the contractual agreement claimed by Abdullah is void owing to which, no legal action can be taken against Glen. Also, Abdullah’s claim can be rejected being illegitimate on the grounds that the property has been transferred with a sum of ?250,000 to Glen, which is valid with exchange of contracts according to section 4(1)a under Land Registration Act 200211. Correspondingly, in order to justify the claim made by Henrietta as legal, she is required to produce the written deed, which was registered in compliance with her rights as a restrictive covenant, so that the restriction can be imposed legally. If proved, Glen shall be bound to abide by the restrictive covenant rules under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and shall not be able to modify Rosebud Cottage under section 11 of the Act12. Additionally, there are several forms of restrictive covenants charges, which may include modification of property, profit motive and displaying advertisements among others. In this context, the stated restriction of the seller should be specified in the deed13;14. Notably, the claim made by Chelsea is legal as she has produced a legal document with the signs of Clifton and Barbara and stated terms of lease signifying that the lease period will commence from the January 2014. In this context, Chelsea holds legal rights to claim against Glen, accordingly binding Clifton and Barbara as the independent leasers, on the grounds that a contract made for lease cannot be reconsidered for sale under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, Chapter 34(2)15. Drawing inferences from the same Act, considering the claim made by Pay-easy Loans Limited to have their loan amount of ?10,000 refunded, can be justified as legitimate, because it was already sanctioned to Clifton and Barbara, which transfers the same to Glen on purchase of the property. However, provided Glen was not aware of the fact and that his contract did not include any clause under the provision mention, Glen possesses the right to claim compensations from Clifton and Barbara under section 63(1) of the Law of Property Act 192516. In the final claim made by Barbara’s niece, Emma, the property transaction between Glen and Clifton and Barbara can be treated as void, although with due compensation to Glen, provided Emma’s claim is proved in paper. Subsequently, she can claim against the property as she did not receive any benefit that she was entitled to, on the grounds of property trust. However, under this circumstance it shall be suggestible to Glen that he is not directly entitled to Emma for her benefits, which makes, Clifton and Barbara chargeable in accordance with the Law of Property Act 1925 under section 2(1A)(2)17. Conclusion Land law (law of real property) generally refers to the constitutional provisions practiced in England and Wales with the objective of protecting the rights of the involved parties, both equitable and legal. The land law ensures that the rights along with interests of land purchasers and sellers are transferred in accordance with equality in complete legitimacy. Commonly, land and real properties are dealt in a legal manner through contractual deeds or contracts, which in turn binds all the involved parties in proportion with regard to the damage suffered18. The referred case in this regard presents an illustrative overview to the application and implications of the land and property purchase acts. As was noted in the case referred, after the purchase of the property, Glen is notified through various claims involving charges of contractual fallacy by Abdullah, restrictive covenant rights by Henrietta, lease claim by Chelsea, repayment of loans claimed by Pay-easy Loans Limited and rights of property held by trust by Emma. Learning the claims made after the purchase of the property by Glen, it can be presumed that Glen was previously unaware of the conflicts involving the purchased property, which makes Glen liable for particular claims but also offers the benefit to legally sue Clifton and Barbara on the grounds of fraudulent charges. References Chancery Lane’s Property Group, ‘Property Briefing’ [2010]. (Conveyancing) accessed 01 November 2013. Crown, ‘Law of Property Act 1925’ [n.d.]. (1925 CHAPTER 20 15 and 16 Geo 5) accessed 01 November 2013. Crown, ‘Land Registration Act 2002’ [2002] (Uploads) accessed 1 November 2013. Crown, ‘Rentcharges Act 1977’ [1977] (Uploads) accessed 1 November 2013. Crown, ‘Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989’ [1989] (Uploads) accessed 1 November 2013. Crown, ‘Law of Property Act 1925’ [2009] (Uploads) accessed 1 November 2013. Crown, ‘Discharge and Modification of Restrictive Covenants’ [2012] (Uploads) accessed 1 November 2013. Crown, ‘Practice Guide 25 - Leases - When to Register’ [2013] (Uploads) accessed 1 November 2013. Department for Communities and Local Government, ‘The Use of Restrictive Covenants in the Pub Industry and Their Impact on Local Communities’ [2011] (Uploads) accessed 1 November 2013. Dixon Martin, Modern Land Law. (Routledge, 2010). Hart Publishing, ‘The Basic Tension of Property Law’ [2013] (Uploads) accessed 1 November 2013. Hooper Katie, ‘Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989’ [2011]. (St John’s Chambers) accessed 01 November 2013. Land Law Solutions, ‘Restrictive Covenants’ [2012] (Uploads) accessed 1 November 2013. Lando Ole & Beale Hugh, Principles of European Contract Law, Part 2. (Kluwer Law International, 2000). Revitt Danny & Wayman Matthew, ‘Property Clinic: Restrictive Covenants’ [2012] (The Telegraph) accessed 1 November 2013. Bibliography Cooke Elizabeth, Modern Studies in Property Law, Volume 2. (Hart Publishing, 2003). Gray Kevin, ‘Land Law and Human Rights’ [2002] (Uploads) accessed 1 November 2013. Spring Eileen, Law, Land, and Family: Aristocratic Inheritance in England 1300 to 1800. (University of North Carolina Press, 1997). TransLegal, ‘Real Property Law’ [2013] (Uploads) accessed 1 November 2013. Tee Louise, Land Law. (Routledge, 2013) Read More