Talk:Torrens title

Comment
Why the Torrens system failed to catch on in the US is an interesting story, one which I don't have the time or the knowledge to contribute anything meaningful on right now. Hopefully some of you other WikiLawyers will have something to say. Ellsworth 00:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

not explained; mirror, curtain and insurance principles
Quoting the article, Torrens system reflects three principles: the mirror principle, the curtain principle and the insurance principle ... these principles aren't explained in the article, and aren't linked to any explanation. -- Quozl.

Yes! The comment is meaningless without more context, and disrupts the flow of the article, so I've removed it - if someone has an explanation of what was meant, they can put it back :-) 217.147.80.29 14:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The three principles briefly: Mirror - the creation or transfer of any legal interest in the land is mirrored on the register. Curtain - the register is definitive and cannot (except in very limited circumstances) be looked behind. Insurance - anyone who suffers a loss due to an error by the registry is entitled to compensation from the state (but this does not extend to fraud by someone else). Lisiate 13:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

not explained: "complete Torrens system"
The article states that "In the United States, only Iowa has a complete Torrens system". What is the definition of a "complete Torrens system"? This should be explained so that people outside the U.S. and Australia can determine if they have a "complete Torrens system" or not; for example, the province of Alberta has a Torrens system. Is it a "complete" one? If so, should it be added to the list? For details on Alberta's Torrens implementation, you can see the final paragraph of http://www.landsurveyinghistory.ab.ca/Township.htm. Examples of how Torrens is partly implemented would also be interesting. Country Wife 02:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What I presume that means is that only in Iowa is all of the land under the Torrens system, as opposed to only some of the land. In Australia, for example, all of the states adopted the Torrens system by the 1870s, but in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia, there remained some land which was under the common law, whereas in South Australia and Queensland all of the land was Torrens land. I don't know the specifics of the situation in the US or Canada but I would think that this is what is meant by "complete".
 * This article could do with a rewrite, which I'll have time for after exams (which incidentally include property law, knowledge which will be helpful here). --bainer (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

cadastre
While the article says the equivalent French term is the cadastre, cadastral maps were made before and after Torrens title being introduced in Australia. How do these relate with Torrens title? --Astrokey 44 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The cadastre is not the equivalent of the Torrens land registry system; the closest equivalent considered in French (civil) law is the 'livre foncier' (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livre_foncier), a system of land registration that has been instituted only in a few parts of the country, but which at the end of the 19th century was much debated as a possible version of the Torrens registration system. I would recommend changing the link from 'Cadastre' to 'Livre Foncier' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.126.48 (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is "around the globe"?
Despite a couple of comments above (made in 2006!) this article still does not give a clear indication of exactly where Torrens systems are in operation. Alberta is still not mentioned in the article, for example, and I believe that at least two other places in Canada (BC and NWT) have something of the sort. As for "pervasive" in the Commonwealth of Nations, does that really mean "pervasive" as opposed to just "fairly common"? I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist in England, for example. If it's Australia, NZ and Canada alone then it is nothing like "pervasive". A section with a reasonably comprehensive list is badly needed. 217.33.74.204 (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One problem with such assertions is that the term "Torrens system" is often used in two senses. The "geneological" sense, i.e. applying to direct descendants of the SA Real Property Act, and the generic sense, applying to title registration schemes as a whole.  Torrens' system in South Australia was the first and most adventurous legislative experiment of its kind. Torrens himself returned to England and participated in land registration debates there and in Ireland -- extensively. While he failed to completely stamp the system in England with all the characteristics of the Australian system, it is a mistake to say that the Torrens system as it exists in Australia and the title registration system in the UK and other jurisdictions is unrelated or completely distinct. In many jurisdictions title registration is also called "Torrens system", but has many distinct features. There is title registration systems in Hawaii and the Philippines for example (both times introduced by the US), but I think it is only called Torrens in the Philippines.  See this article from the NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9800E1DA133DE333A25751C1A9629C946596D6CF&oref=slogin -- which confidently asserts that a Torrens system exists in London (where early title registration experiments were done), and many states of the USA.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliau (talk • contribs) 00:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a tricky question. Torrens himself recognised the debt he owed to the Royal Commission in England that had been working on the same problem. Most academics that I have read treat (in a geneological sense) Torrens and the English system as being of common origin owing much to each other but ultimately borrowing much from what went before, particularly in Germany. Its probably best not to use "Torrens title" as a generic term for all title registration as it then becomes a less useful technical term for Torrens derived systems, which share many features not shared by other title registration schemes. There has (of course) been much convergent evolution as well. Francis Davey (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, regardless of whether it originated as a Torrens system or not, after the recent reforms, I can't actually differentiate between the description here, and the English & Welsh land registry system. We've had a land registry since 1925... one which matches the Mirror, Curtain, and Indemnity principle. What is the difference between the Torrens land register, effect of registration, and the indefeasability of title section? I can't see any at all personally.144.124.1.37 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Land_registration, the UK system is a modified Torrens system?144.124.1.37 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Iowa? Torrens?
I am an Abstractor that works for a title insurance company. I have been to Iowa several times and I can assure you that I have not found a single Certificate of Title in any county I have visited there. All Iowa Property is Abstract. There are no Registrars of Title in the entire state. They also don't recognize title insurance in Iowa, which is why I travel there from Minnesota, where there is a Registrar of Title in every county, as far as I can tell.

I think someone is trying to yank your chain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.186.28.25 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Iowa? Torrens?
I am an abstractor that works for a title insurance company. I have been to Iowa several times and I can assure you that I have not found a single Certificate of Title in any county I have visited there. All Iowa Property is Abstract. There are no Registrars of Title in the entire state. They also don't recognize title insurance in Iowa, which is why I travel there from Minnesota, where there is a Registrar of Title in every county, as far as I can tell.

I think someone is trying to yank our collective chain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.186.28.25 (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hernando de Soto supports Torrens system?
Not only is this point unsubstantiated, I think it is an incorrect interpretation. One of the main themes of de Soto's scholarship is how poor government in third world countries limits the ability of the poor to create capital; in this case, ascertaining title to land they possess. In Mystery of Capital, he speaks approvingly of the recording system (as opposed to the Torrens system) for 1) limiting government lethargy in producing titles from interfering with possessors ascertaining title to land which they improved and 2) following the common law tradition of being much more flexible to the individual title complexities that people dig themselves into. Either this statement needs an appropriate citation or it should be removed and replaced with a critique of the Torrens system. Jgold03 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli System
Sorry to disappoint the original writer, but the Israel system is older and goes back to Ottoman Turkish rule, in this part of the world. That is up to 1917/18 when the land was mandated by the British. They continued with the Turkish TABU land registry system. This is certainly based on maps of the sites and their ownership, as in the Torrens situation. The maps are open to public examination, but it needs to be arranged through the (urban) municipalities engineering departments or the local (rural) councils. All land sales (contracts) must be registered and land values recorded. Unfortunately it is not very efficient and due to the associated legal fees, formal legislation, inheritance and ignorance of the land occupiers themselves as well as the detailed parcellization of sites for housing blocks etc., it does not always work properly.

Only a small, but most valuable proportion is privately owned. The rest is leased or on loan from the Israel Lands Authority, who largely have taken over the more central regions' land that was originally purchased through the Jewish National Fund (or Keren haYesod), before the state came into existence. Tax is collected on buildings not site-values, as Arnona, but today land betterment tax is also applied, at about 25% of the increase in the land value, between land sales. (It used to be more, which was thought to restrict development, but in fact the opposite is true because speculation in land values can now be more profitable so buyers are reluctant to sellMacrocompassion (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC).) Macrocompassion (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

What in hell does "indefeasible" mean?
Torrens title is recorded centrally. It can disappear without cause or explanation anytime the government deems fit to take it or transfer it to someone else. 24.237.186.177 (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * see Indefeasible (redirects to Defeasible reasoning, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/indefeasible, etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It does not depend on the Internet or even electronic data.
>> To say the Torrens system is based on the principle that information "must be entered on the register and so be viewable by cheap online search" is nonsense as the system was invented and implemented long before the Internet existed. 83.58.131.233 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The mention of online search came into the article in this edit, which looks like an attempt to improve the article by introducing some original research material without regard to the pre-existing cite of this source. I have not seen the cited source myself, and can't offer any worthwhile thoughts about other changes made in that edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

US section, Virginia reference out-of-date
The Virginia law reference points to a law that has been repealed. I don't really understand enough to know whether that means that the partial implementation of Torrens is no longer present in Virginia, or whether it means that the reference should now point to a different section. If someone knows, could they either remove Virginia from the list or point to a law that hasn't been repealed? FideliaE (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)