User talk:Necessaryx

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- 9cds(talk) 21:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Attorney?
If so, please add your name to WikiProject Law, and add yourself to Lawyer Wikipedians. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Escheat
An obscure topic, so I thought I'd have a quick word with you before diving into the talk page of Escheat.

Basically, I am not sure I agree with you. You may have more knowledge of experience of the subject, but as far as I can see you reflect the view of the law commissioner (Charles Harpum) that escheat is a two step process. As far as I can see this is contradicted by the authorities and has no authoritative support itself.

What the case of Scmlla seems to say is that if escheat happens, the land does not become a part of the Crown Estate unless action is taken, but the freehold estate certainly vanishes. That has consequences for any leasholders (for example). My understanding of Crown Estate practice was that they granted a new fee simple, rather than attempting to transfer a (now vanished) estate.

What do you think? Francis Davey 23:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! yes it is obscure, although something i am interested in because it is a dominant issue in one of my current cases. My primary sources are SCMLLA Properties and two law commission reports, so i'm afraid i could be incorrect if they are incorrect. I think there has to be a two stage process, because, for example, when property passes bona vacantia, by virtue of insolvency, that in itself can be disclaimed by the Crown, and the land then escheats. This gives a way for the Crown to allow the land to escheat, and any liabilities to cease, but clearly as demesne land they still 'own' it. However, i have no idea how this happens in practice via the Crown Estate, and at the moment have no way of checking. There is no question that the title ceases to exist, and even the recent ammendment via the Land Registration Act, accept that the title and estate cease to exist (although the old title number is kept on until the new title is registered, rather than the old title simply being closed).


 * My supposition, although this is not the place for supposition, is that where another person has an interest in the land, they would be in a position to acquire a greater title, on the basis that no-one (other than the Crown, and in this example the Crown have failed to take any further steps) has the right to challenge their lack of title, as there is no longer a freeholder. If no-one else has any interest in the land, there would seem to be no reason why the Crown would not wish to re-grant it. Again, I think the questions you have thrown up mean the article should be re-written, and further research is necessary, although given the SCMLLA case, that point of view should be included.

England and Wales
Thanks for the input. I encountered this only by the accident of a correction made to one of the pages I monitor. I had never bothered to look at the English law page, being more interested in the substantive law pages. The note to the correction was obviously made by a non-lawyer and fervent Welsh person hence my suspicion of NPOV when I saw the current situation. I suppose I will bite the bullet and make the correction. I would appreciate some moral support in the event there is resistance. David91 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for disturbing you but User talk:Morwen seems to think I am talking through my hat on dividing the UK up into separate states (she hates the use of that word) and including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands has set her vision at red. If you have a copy of Dicey and Morris or any other Conflict book to hand, could you verify this for me please. I am not going to get involved in her certainty vs mine since I have to avoid emotional situations where my blood pressure might go up suddenly. If this is too great an imposition, do not hesitate to tell me to go away. All the best. David91 10:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For specificness the edits are and .  If my skepticism (not anger) is wrong, so be it.  But I thought it worth inquiring further.  Morwen - Talk 10:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Law selections
Greetings, fellow WikiProject Law member! One of our tasks on this WikiProject is the upkeep of Portal:Law, where we have set up a four week cycle wherein each week one of four key features - the selected article, biography, case, or image - is rotated out. Previous selections can be found at Portal:Law/former selections. Please contribute your thoughts at Portal talk:Law as to likely candidates for future rotations in each of these categories. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum
Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)