|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 30, 2024 9:16:54 GMT
John builds a house on Mark's land. The land was not being used. It was overgrown with scrub and John believed that Mark had abandoned it. Mark stood by and watched while John built the house, not informing him that he intended to fully assert his rights to the land and anything John might build on it. What should the legal outcome be? Reasoned answers are helpful, but not necessary. That's a very good one. I am tempted to say that Mark's behavior was implicit permission - ie he gave the land away. For this to be the case he must have been aware of John's lack of knowledge, known john was investing effort on the assumption of continued use and did nothing at all to inform john despite opportunity Though it depends on the state of play re tenure information. If john could have easily found out, then this argument fails. Interesting! I'm reluctant to say that your view reflects the law because equity is nuanced and operates from principles rather than hard and fast rules. But, largely, what you say is correct. English law would likely find that John has rights for the reason you state. I'm working from memory here. I could be wrong. If anyone wants to look into it closer, try Googling estoppel by acquiescence. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,702
|
Post by Steve on Jul 30, 2024 16:06:47 GMT
That's a very good one. I am tempted to say that Mark's behavior was implicit permission - ie he gave the land away. For this to be the case he must have been aware of John's lack of knowledge, known john was investing effort on the assumption of continued use and did nothing at all to inform john despite opportunity Though it depends on the state of play re tenure information. If john could have easily found out, then this argument fails. Interesting! I'm reluctant to say that your view reflects the law because equity is nuanced and operates from principles rather than hard and fast rules. But, largely, what you say is correct. English law would likely find that John has rights for the reason you state. I'm working from memory here. I could be wrong. If anyone wants to look into it closer, try Googling estoppel by acquiescence. Complicated wee en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel_in_English_law#Estoppel_by_acquiescenceAs per Orac's comment, no contract unless Mark was fully aware. Consideration is a vital part of establishing a contract, without it there is no contract. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 31, 2024 7:55:16 GMT
Yes - contract is a good way to think about it.
However, this a a contract in which one side has to be unaware of the other party to the contract. Land likely produces some really odd scenarios because, unlike houses or cars, it isn't self evidently a person's property.
If you go into the past landowners were required to clarify things with markers, fences, water-tanks etc
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 31, 2024 17:38:32 GMT
It was self evident to John that it was not his land.
He tried to steal it from Mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 31, 2024 18:25:18 GMT
It was self evident to John that it was not his land. He tried to steal it from Mark. John was under the impression that Mark had abandoned the land. It happens. In this case, it is Mark (who stands by without warning John in the hope of a windfall) who is acting unconscionably. Just curious - how do you feel about squatters' rights? |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 31, 2024 18:51:12 GMT
It was self evident to John that it was not his land. He tried to steal it from Mark. John was under the impression that Mark had abandoned the land. It happens. In this case, it is Mark (who stands by without warning John in the hope of a windfall) who is acting unconscionably. Just curious - how do you feel about squatters' rights? Squatters don't really have rights anymore. You have to live in someone else's house for 10 years without objection to claim any rights. My opinion is that if someone lives in your empty property for 10 years without you noticing you've got too much property. John hasn't occupied the land for anything like 10 years though and as far as we know, made no effort to find out who owned it. Little more than an opportunist thief IMO. Deport him to Rwanda. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 31, 2024 18:56:29 GMT
John was under the impression that Mark had abandoned the land. It happens. In this case, it is Mark (who stands by without warning John in the hope of a windfall) who is acting unconscionably. Just curious - how do you feel about squatters' rights? Squatters don't really have rights anymore. You have to live in someone else's house for 10 years without objection to claim any rights. My opinion is that if someone lives in your empty property for 10 years without you noticing you've got too much property. John hasn't occupied the land for anything like 10 years though and as far as we know, made no effort to find out who owned it. Little more than an opportunist thief IMO. Deport him to Rwanda. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it 12 years? And isn't the right far wider than merely living in somebody's house? You need only trespass on somebody's property to the extent that they are excluded from using it. You might leave an old vehicle on somebody's property without their permission (thus excluding them from using the area in which it is parked) or you might let your livestock wander onto and use the land. Both are instances of trespass which could, in the proper circumstances, give rise to a claim to have the title transferred to the trespasser. By the way, a squatter has more than rights against the owner of the land. Somebody who takes possession of another's land acquires the right to eject all third parties. So, If Michael squats on Terry's land for 1 year (or any period), Michael will have the right to eject Jason should Jason attempt to come onto the land. Terry has a superior right to Michael (and may eject him within12 years); but Michael will have a superior right to Jason (and may eject him within 12 years). Do you have too much property if you are an elderly farmer who can no longer make the trek to a high field? |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 31, 2024 19:08:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Jul 31, 2024 19:10:23 GMT
Okay, 10 years in the case of registered land and 12 years in the case of unregistered land, then. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 31, 2024 19:14:21 GMT
Okay, 10 years in the case of registered land and 12 years in the case of unregistered land, then. Seems to be. 10 years in Rwanda for John then. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 1, 2024 8:19:15 GMT
It was self evident to John that it was not his land... ....yet The complication is that all land starts as nobody's property and then becomes someone's property |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Aug 1, 2024 15:25:48 GMT
It was self evident to John that it was not his land... ....yet The complication is that all land starts as nobody's property and then becomes someone's property Yes and this was not John's. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 1, 2024 15:29:05 GMT
....yet The complication is that all land starts as nobody's property and then becomes someone's property Yes and this was not John's. Monte...seriously Are you unable to grasp that the character in the scenario might have less information than what is provided by the narrator? |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Aug 1, 2024 15:39:40 GMT
Yes and this was not John's. Monte...seriously Are you unable to grasp that the character in the scenario might have less information than what is provided by the narrator? John knows the land is not his. That is all the information he needs. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 1, 2024 15:56:49 GMT
Monte...seriously Are you unable to grasp that the character in the scenario might have less information than what is provided by the narrator? John knows the land is not his. That is all the information he needs. If that were the case then no un-owned land could become property because nobody who didn't own it could use it. Land is peculiar because it must become property and so it isn't self evident that it is property. |
|
