Nature of the Interests Claimed on Pauls Acquired Property and Why They Are Bound on the Property - Case Study Example

Nature of the interests claimed upon Paul’s acquired property and why they are bound on the property and State: Date: Paul’s acquisition of the property grants him ownership that will be defined by the length of time and physical boundaries as outlined on the title plan. The plan contains some aspects that are meant for general guidance. This is well stipulated in Land Registration Act 2002, s.60 (1)-(2). The actual boundaries are defined by some reference to both the plan and another form of evidence that would be subject to a number of rules such as ‘hedge and ditch’ rule ‘ad medium filum’. Paul is also entitled to the territory overhead the property. This is the direct superjacent of territory whose actual authority is required for Paul’s practical satisfaction at ground level (Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v Sky views & General Limited 1978). Regardless, Paul should know that airspace itself can exist as an independent unit of real property (7Macht v Department of Assets of Baltimore City, 296 A2d 162 at 168 (1972). As such, the airspace can be taken in a simple remuneration (10Reilly v Booth (1890). Moreover, it can be leased (7Macht v Department of Assets of Baltimore City). In addition, the land can also be split (Bursill Enterprises Pty Ltd v Berger Bros Trading Co Pty Ltd 1971). And can even be subjected to land taxes (9Re Trizec Manitoba Ltd and City Assessor for the City of Winnipeg (1986) 25 DLR (4th) 444). Paul’s tenure is subject to some more confines. For instance, all privileges to oil, inclusive of minerals and gas is bestowed in the summit (Petroleum Act 1998 (ss.1 (a), 2(1). More so, raw coal is conferred by statute to the Coal Regulating Authority as stated in the Coal Industry Act of 1994, ss.1(1), 7(3). Otherwise, the Crown may extend exploration and exploitation rights to Paul according to s.3 (1)). Paul has to be aware that that the crown also has a prerogative right to mines of silver and gold (Case of Mines (1568) 1 Plowd 310 at 336, 75 ER 472 at 510). Having a close look at the document attached, the property acquired by Paul has “fixtures’’. The house is an object permanently fixed to the ground thus a fixture (6Holland v Hodgson (1872) LR 7 CP 328 at 335). Paul acquires this property legally and is entitled to every item described in the title. All structures, the ground covered, airspace and others are all his. The completion of payment grants him the power to subject the property to any use that he would want. He is entitled to all the rights of the owner and can take all legal actions that would be necessary if anything comes up. We see a few people affiliated with the former owner come into the picture. Samantha, the previous owner, had exercised her rights as an owner and engaged into some contracts with a few individuals. These individuals put across some claims, and we can examine their nature. Firstly, Adrian claims that Samantha had granted him the right to use a path across the acquired land. Samantha had entered into a deed setting out the right that would allow him to use the path as long as he lived next door. In legal terms, the nature of this interest is what the law terms as an easement. Adrian had been granted a right over Samantha’s land which now belongs to Paul. Contemporary conclusions by the Law Commission suggest that there are more than 65% of registered freehold titles. That illuminates the necessity of easements in the public. In this case, the circumstance is done expressly by deed, an approach that is not controversial and legally acceptable. Again, by common law, an easement obligation have the following features. Firstly, there must be the overriding and a servient residence. Secondly, the easement need provide accommodations to the principal tenement, explicitly, it has to be linked with its gratification for its advantage. Thirdly, the prevailing and servient possessors must be dissimilar individuals. And finally, the right claimed must be capable of forming the subject-matter of a grant. From the first feature, we have the two distinct plot of land that’s Samantha’s and Adrian’s. This is vital in the definition of an easement. The right is granted to a land owner hence in one aspect it’s legally an easement. We can examine the second characteristic. We see that the granted right is associated with the delight of the main tenement in nearly all aspects. Importantly, Adrian has to enjoy this as a next door land owner rather than a personal right. Crucially, an easement must be adept of establishment a grant by deed. This means that a particular right must be sure and positive in resolve, and more so the courts must be willing to recognize that right as an easement. The case of Adrian would never fail in this criteria thus in one way, he is still entitled to the right. Having a close examination of Section 1(2) of the Property Act 1925, it stipulates that easements are an interest capable of being legal, with S52 of the 1925 Act. However, all conveyances would be declared void not unless established by deed. Adrian and Samantha were keen to get an easement through a deed making it a legal easement. This means that the easement passes automatically on the transfer of the dominant tenement and thus Adrian can still enjoy the right from that aspect. In this particular dispute regarding Adrian, we would have to extend legal advice to Paul. In fact, this interest is bound to Merlewood. We have to agree that it meets the criterion of an easement in some way. Out rightly, there was no use of force, stealth and was granted with permission. So this matter is subject of analysis to see whether it would be prescribed as an easement.By law, the advantage of a lawful easement would have to permit to the subsequent proprietor of the statement lacking express words. For Paul, the law states that, no land owner who wishes to stop a particular acquisition of a perspective should suffer in silence. Paul should see the deed was established in 2011 thus has not continued for a period of twenty years a requirement for prescription of an easement. We also see Belinda come into question. We realize that Samantha had granted her a five years lease of the Green cottage within the Merlewood ground. Belinda was also granted tenancy of a barn for band rehearsals. We term this as a leasehold interest. The lease was granted through a deed. In this case, the asset is a tangible property, and we can call it a rental agreement. We have to examine this to identify it as a cancelable lease or non-cancelable lease. A lease would provide specific provisions as per the responsibilities and rights of the lessee and lessor. The lessee is granted the possession of the leased property and can use it without distraction not unless he grants the permission by paying the agreed fee to the lessor. In this case, Paul would have to understand that the lease would be terminated before its end date. This may be due to the following conditions; either break or cancel depending on the terms of the lease or a negotiated deed of surrender or Yielding up, by operation of Statute or forfeiture. By regulation, transference of lingering interest in an agreement is conceivable. Sharing or tendencies to part with possession can be a breach of some leases leading in action for forfeiture. Chris, Samantha’s ex-partner also encounters Paul, who claims to be a beneficiary under a trust. He seeks payment for invested money while renovating the property they shared with Samantha. The idea of their relationship hints about co-ownership of the property. Chris financial contribution earns him a claim on the property. It is never mentioned that Chris and Samantha had a written agreement that Chris would never claim benefits from the sale of this property. No solicitor was involved. The baggage is passed on to Paul. Paul should understand that this is tied up to his new property, and he would have put across a good argument to portray himself as a separate legal entity from Samantha. The title doesn’t mention Chris anywhere leaving so many loopholes to be exploited. We also identify Dilys, Samantha’s aunt. She produces a deed of charge dated 14th December 2012. She is claiming a loan made to Samantha to fix the roof sometime in the winter. Paul is a third party in this case yet again tied to the property in question. Samantha had many scores to settle, and she passed them over to Paul. Paul can take a few legal actions against Samantha. Suing her would help solve some of these problems. Again, the claimants through a legal action can be directed to seek compensation from Samantha herself. Paul’s ownership of Merle wood would have to settle all this claims first to enjoy the benefits that come with it. Seeking a competent solicitor would get a new owner past these challenges. Technically, all the covenants contained in all the mentioned deeds are promises that were made by Samantha. They are documented hence still legal. If we maintain the ordinary contract principles, the covenants are enforceable between the parties tied to them. Such contracts would not be enforceable by or against the transferee of land when the possessions in question had been predisposed of by the novel constricting party. Samantha should be charged for not honoring this covenants. Read More