Property Law: Registered Tittles - Case Study Example

REGISTERED TITLE Name: Instructor: Course: Date of Submission Registered Title "The register of title of any particular registered estate is .... intended to operate as a mirror, reflecting to potential disponees (and to any other interested persons) the full range of the proprietary benefits and burdens which currently affect the land. The register provides, in effect, a fairly accurate snap-shot of title at any given moment.” The land registry plays a crucial role in decisions regarding land and property ownership. The most significant aspect of the land registry is the “mirror principle”, which is one of the three principles that underpin a sound, land registry system. Central to the mirror principle is the notion that a dully-registered land title should reflect significant and crucial details that a purchaser can access prior to buying the land. However, the mirror principle lacks substance where the land in question is unregistered. The issue of unregistered land then brings to the fore “overriding interests.” The equitable title that an individual or proprietor can have from living in occupation is a prominent concern relating to unregistered land. As such, a sound land registry should give priority to overriding interests when determining land ownership to render justice to individuals in actual occupation. All land in the United Kingdom (UK) was unregistered prior to the enactment of various property legislations in 19261. Thus, the title to the land entailed deducing ownership from documents and deeds, as well as from the physical inspection of land. These inherent limitations led to the enactment of the Land Registration Act 1925 (hereafter LRA 1925) to simplify conveyance2. Moreover, the LRA 1925 was also essential to display the mirror of the land title to the purchaser through a single document referred to as a “Title Information Document.” Consequently, the registration of land became compulsory. The Land Registration Act 2002 (hereafter LRA 2002) replaced LRA 19253. The sole purpose for the introduction of the LRA 2002 was to increase the triggers for initial lad registration, which was necessary to hasten the land registration process across the entire country. In effect, the sale or purchase of unregistered land now necessitates first registration; hence, approximately 80-85 percent of land has been registered4. Notwithstanding the aforementioned results, it is imperative to consider the implications for the persons who own the remaining 15-20 percent land that is not yet registered. The government has often advocated voluntary registration of land, but landowners wait for the registration to be triggered automatically when land transactions affects their estate. Property lawyers can use numerous cases as the precedence for establishing claims. Nonetheless, supplement 15 of the Limitation Act 1980, as well as s75 of the LRA 1925 grants the possessory land title to squatters have been the owner of the land for twelve years5. However, court decisions have challenged the legality of the two legal provisions mentioned beforehand. For instance, the JA Pye Ltd v Graham6 case accused the government for violating the human rights spelled out in the First Protocol. The European Convention of Human Rights was the main litigant in this case. The LRA 2002 made provisions for a new system to address the limitation concern. Accordingly, the new legislation abolished the limitation period that could defeat the title deed owner categorically7. Despite the introduction of the new law, unregistered land still faces the challenges from the old system today. The preceding discussions have highlighted how overriding interests may become problematic in case law. Overriding interests have always been indicative of a flaw in the land registration system. In fact, overriding interests in LRA 1995 were considered ‘the crack in the mirror of title’ before the introduction of the LRA 20028. Since the land register system does not record these interests, they cannot be discovered by the mere act of inspecting the system. It is assumed that purchasers have all the information regarding the land in question, such as tenants and property owners. The case of Pritchard v Briggs9 has illustrated how a bona fide purchaser can defeat a landowner with an equitable interest without notice. The preceding case has shown the existence of unfairness regarding the overriding rights. The problem has been exacerbated further by the fact that judicial and social interests have widened the scope to facilitate the existence of overriding interests. In consequence, the potential buyer cannot establish the existence of such interests by merely inspecting the land title documents or the land. The principal problematic area concerning overriding rights is equitable co-ownership. This challenge was illustrated in the Pettitt v Pettitt10, as well as that of Williams and Glyn’s Bank v Boland11 Both cases explored the concept of an unwary purchaser under S 70 (1) (g). The House of Lords have also addressed the issue of actual occupation vis-à-vis the one regarding overriding interests. In the case of Abbey National Building Society v Cann12 the Lords held that the date when the transaction is completed rather than that of registration is the relevant time for establishing occupation for the purposes of section.70(1) (g). Therefore, moving to the property does not form sufficient evidence to warrant actual occupation. Furthermore, the judges in the case of Lloyds Bank v Rosset13 used the preceding case as the jurisprudence in the current case. The judges further determined that Rosset’s efforts towards redecoration and in supervising the constructors were not sufficient to prove occupation and ownership. Overriding interests under the LRA 2002 may be imposed against a proprietor registered initially or an individual who becomes the registered proprietor on the transferred titled that has been registered already. Schedule 1 of LRA 2002 governs overriding interests during the initial registration. On the other hand, Schedule 3 of LRA 2002 defines those interests arising from the transfer of land that has been registered already. However, the 2002 Act only achieves this objective to a minimal degree considering the case of Kling v Keston Properties Ltd14 In this case, the complainant’s right of preemption over a garage superseded the 99-year lease that had been granted to the third party, in addition to being registered. The notice doctrine and the unregistered system of evaluating title deeds has been touted as being unduly burdensome on the land purchaser. Conversely, the role of the legal system is to consider the conflicting interests between occupants and purchasers. The doctrine of interest has no basis in the registered system while it has a minimal use in the system. Nonetheless, both the legislature and the judiciary have established the validity to impose certain comparative prerequisites to individuals purchasing registered land. A comparison between LRA 2002 and LRA 1925 has revealed that the former has reduced the range and scope overriding interests regarding both sections1 and 315. Moreover, the court has also adjudicated over overriding interests involving couples as in the case of National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965]16. The Lords ruled that Mrs. Ainsworth lacked proprietary interest in the land, which could constitute an overriding interest. Since her husband was against her idea to stay in the house, the judges determined that the right to continue occupying the house was a sheer personal right. Thus, this personal right did not grant her any equitable interest or estate in the house. The issue of beneficial interest in matrimonial property following a contribution to the purchase price by both spouses was established in the Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland17 appeal case. The presiding judges threw out the appeal in favour of the wives who had an overriding interest in the property. Conclusion Overriding interests in registered land have had a long history of contentions in the UK given that they bind third-party purchasers without notifying them. The main issue of concern in this case is that these interests cannot be discovered by merely inspecting the register of the land title. Nevertheless, the third party is oftentimes not aware of their existence. The burden imposed on the purchaser is to find sufficient information about the land before he or she can acquire it. The aforementioned burden distorts the mirror principle of the land registry system; thus, exposing “cracks” in the system. Therefore, it is imperative to reexamine the contentious sections of overriding interests based on recent cases in order to establish a unified opinion.   References Abbey National Building Society v Cann [1991] AC 56 (HL) Bray, Judith, Key facts key cases land law (Rout ledge, London, 2013). Burn, Edward & J Cartwright, Land law cases and materials (Oxford University Press, England, 2009). Dowden, Malcolm, Practitioners guide to the Land Registration Act 2002( Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, 2013). JA Pye Ltd v Graham [2002] AC 419 (HL) Kling v Keston Properties Ltd [1983] 49 P&CR 212 Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] AC 107 (HL) National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [1965] 3 WLR 1 (HL) November, Janet & Julia, Randell. The “Mirror” Principle and the position of unregistered interests in the torrens system (HEINONLINE, 2010). Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 (HL) Pritchard v Briggs [1980] Ch 338 Williams & Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland [1981] AC487 (HL) Read More