wrote:
Stuart Bronstein wrote:

For example in the US the distinction between registered and
unregistered land does not exist - it's all registered (we call
it "recorded").

My understanding was that this isn't the case - that there is no
registered land, as we would understand it - in the US and that
you rely on title insurance. Isn't that right? Your system is
essentially a form of deed registration, whereas ours is a full
"Torrens title" system.

Thanks for pointing that out - I hadn't realized that and just made an
assumption. According to Wikipedia one of the states uses the Torrens
system, the others rely on chain of title. It seems to me that the
Torrens sytems works better than the chain of title system.

Title insurance is used in some but not all states, though it is
becoming more widespread. Primarily it's just a way to research the
chain of title. It's thought that, if there is a loss as a result of a
mistake in the research, collecting on insurance is easier than suing a
lawyer for malpractice.

Stu

Thanks for the replies, I am grateful even though someone has
suggested they may be random.

I assure you I have read up on Land Law and especially Adverse
Possession. The Land is not registered yet.

I used the wrong words in "looking after". The seller had treated the
shed as if it were his own without challenge although he had full
knowledge that in fact it is included in the title deeds of his
neighbour. The new owner is aware of the situation and has taken the
matter a stage further by altering the shed and treating it as if he
owned it too. After 7 years he will add the sworn affidavit of the
previous owners 5 years and then intends to have a possessory title of
the shed. Interestingly, this would then necessitate the current
'rightful' owner - the person with the title on paper now - to have to
amend their deeds.

It all seems a little murky, as I understand the laws regarding
adverse possession are there to tidy up land matters, especially where
ownership is not clear, but in this case the shed is clearly shown on
the neighbour's deeds.

The word 'conspiracy' was a bit strong, but I simply feel that the
people involved are setting out or scheming to gain something rather
than wait the 12 years THEN lay claim.

The point that the shed should have been [included] in the title deeds at time of
sale is interesting, but then this would really be naughty as the
seller knows he simply does not own the shed. He swore an affidavit
instead which can be used when the 7 years is up.

Al

I feel there is something not quite right with all this and yet I am
reasonably able to argue that everything is above board, legally if
not morally.

Al

" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 31 Oct, 11:55, "Norman Wells" wrote:

But even if it were, there is a question as to whether the land on
which the shed stands is registered. That seems likely at this point
in time (though it may not be). If it is, the rules are quite
different and you *don't* acquire title automatically by adverse
possession.


Thank you for that, Francis. I couldn't believe that I read all the previous
posts, and nobody had mentioned that (with the quite recent change in the
law) you can no longer obtain title through adverse possession. I had not
realised that that change only applied to registered land. Of course, round
where I am, everything pretty much is registered.

By the way, are you able to help me (on a professional basis) with a
compulsory purchase compensation claim?

On 1 Nov, 18:50, "GB" wrote:

By the way, are you able to help me (on a professional basis) with a
compulsory purchase compensation claim?

Quite possibly, feel free to email me and we can discuss it.

Francis