Legal vs Equitable Interests | Land Law
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Subscribe to my personal channel for videos on how to study law effectively & efficiently: / @heygarethevans Equitable rights in rem are rights that were recognised by the court of chancery historically and legal rights in rem were recognised by the common law courts . So historically we had 2 parallel systems of law, the common law and equity - equity was designed to deal with any injustices of the common law court and provide solutions/remedies where the common law wouldn’t. Now, although there are 2 separate systems, the court have been merged and deal with common law and equity together - where there is a conflict equity will prevail. Legal rights in rem are more likely to bind a purchaser of land. The conditions/criteria in establishing a right of rem are more easily satisfied by legal rights in rem than equitable rights in rem in general terms - this is where the distinction has a practical relevance to us.
The only estates or interests which are capable of being legal are the fee simple, lease (LPA 1925 s.1(1)), easement, rentcharge, mortgage, statutory charge and right of entry (LPA 1925 s.1(2)). All other interests (e.g. the restrictive covenant, estoppel equity and beneficial interest under trust) are necessarily equitable (LPA 1925 s.1(3)).
If you have any questions drop me a message below 👍🏻
-------------------------------
Hey! If you’re new to the channel… my name is Gareth Evans
I am the owner of Digestible Notes, a website created to make learning fun and easy to understand. Our ultimate goal is to make education accessible to everyone and centralise the internet's vast sea of information.
I want to show you that anyone can achieve their learning goals and live their dream life.
Read from our website: digestiblenote...
-------------------------------
SEE MY VIDEO ON PERSONAL VS PROPRIETARY RIGHTS ➡️
• Personal vs Proprietar...
If you liked this blog post you may like my website post on 'Definitions and Rights in Land Law': digestiblenote...
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D1 | Fall | ยิงต้องโหด ให้เหมือนโกรธกันมาก่อน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OnTdfGySmds/mqdefault.jpg)
![Warhammer 40k: Space Marine 2 | เพื่อจักรพรรดิ ! [ตอนเดียวจบ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4M0ckYMA4-U/mqdefault.jpg)
Subscribe to my personal channel for videos on how to study law effectively & efficiently: th-cam.com/channels/wgN8QVt3yIqcoi04EVqEYA.html
It would help if you simplified your words instead of using the same terms as the silde. Please consider this for the future for new learners. Thank you.
Look up words you don’t know, everything can’t be soon fed to you
Hi, can you please make a video lesson on 'overriding interests' many thanks
Very interesting but I have a question if you don't mind. When purchasing a motor vehicle why is the certificate of manifest not given to the purchaser. Dose this render the State the one with any equitable intrest? Thank you.
Hi, very well explained. What cases can we refer to distinguish between legal and equitable interests?
You could talk about loads of different cases, as distinguishing whether an interest is legal or equitable can often be a point of contention! Is there something in particular you are looking to understand more about?
Hello, I have a question. Can one create a legal interest in an equitable estate such as equitable leasehold/freehold?
Hi, just a question as I'm confused. I understand that both legal and equitable interest are both types of proprietary rights and proprietary rights are supposedly binding to a purchaser. However, are they both binding to a purchaser or not? Are all proprietary rights binding to a purchaser or is it only legal interests that are binding?
Hey!
My question is "whether property law is a law of Equity"?
Hey, thanks for your message! Property law and the law of equity certainly have a number of areas where they overlap, but they are separate and you should learnt them as separate topics 😊
Thankyou so much very well explained 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No problem, I am happy to hear that you found the video helpful! 👍🏻
Hi! I want to learn from your videos but first I want to know if the same terms and rules apply to the United States, specifically Minnesota. Thanks!
Hey! Thanks for your comment and interest in my videos. These videos have been created primarily with reference to UK law and other commonwealth countries, however, there may be some applicability to US laws too.
Gareth Evans thanks!
Does equity provide a remedy for a beneficiary whose trustee is dealing unconscionably with the trust property? As I comprehend it the beneficiary will have standing, but not capacity to bring an action against the trustee (let's call him John Smith). I had read that a beneficiary can stand in the shoes of his trustee to protect his beneficial interest. Assuming this is correct would the beneficiary launch court proceedings in the name John Smith, such that the case would be John Smith v John Smith? Or am I completely lost here?
Is this considered’ subrogation’???
@@tevval7434 A good question. The action is like unto subrogation. However the beneficiary has not discharged a debt or duty of the trust so I am not certain that subrogation applies. As I comprehend subrogation a pre-cursor to its operation is the discharge of a debt or duty on behalf of the subrogee. For example I believe an insurance company can't subrogate to the insured's rights until they payout to the insured.
With a trust a beneficiary lacks capacity. To gain capacity the beneficiary must step into the trustee's shoes and use the trustee's name. I am not sure this mechanism has been given a specific name like 'subrogation'.
This is based on law texts I have read which touched on the issue without explaining the details of the mechanism so I am hoping to fill in the blanks. It could be subrogation but as I said it seems to lack the trigger I thought was a precursor to subrogation.
What details do you have to getting into private chambers with a chancellor and having the proof of trust and him doing a final decree on the birth certificate trust?
@@tevval7434 I think this is the wrong forum for that question.
😉 agreed I Still have questions... I’m on fb if you wanna spit some more on this...
Love this video ! So helpful ! Thank You so much ! Wish you were my law tutor !
Thank you very much! 😀
Such a helpful video thank you!!!
Hi, just a quick question. I was wondering whether an easement would take effect in equity if it is made by deed under s52(1) but is not registered. If so, would you be able to explain how this would operate under the Law of Property Miscellaneous Privisions Act s2 please.
Thanks :)
Easements are legal rights in rem and will achieve legal status if created by a valid deed and registered. If it isn't registered it may still take effect in equity, yes, in the same way as a pre-conferment contract (Parker v Taswell (1858)). However, for the easement to take effect in equity it must comply with the Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Ac s.2, which tells you that the failed grant of the legal easement must have been made in signed writing! I hope that helps 😁
Any chance you could respond to my previous comment?
Thank you well explained .
No problem, glad you enjoyed the video!
hey, awesome job at this video! the true mvp