PDA

View Full Version : Fee Simple and Land Ownership Rights Explained



Glass
20th September 2011, 01:56 AM
With regard to land, this is more relevant to Commonwealth countries than the US because of the type of head of state and base title structure.

This is an interesting look at Fee Simple titles and how they work. How they compare to other "newer" types of titles.

Since about 1948 most commonwealth states have had a Land Administration act in place that converts Fee Simple title to a Freehold or even lower standard of title. The material is from a PDF linked below. There is much more info in the PDF.

It even gives some clues as to how someone might be able to claim crown land to their control and possibly in fee simple. I thought the information on things like assurances as a claim to land was very interesting.


A Grant in Fee Simple Title
The Abolition of Tenures Act 1660
In 1660, the Crown, at that time King Charles II, could no longer afford the upkeep of land and services to His subjects therefore he abolished old tenures and allowed a statute law to be enacted for the sale of the lands of the Crown.

Original Letters Patent to Governor Philip
In the early days of the colony at Botany Bay, Governor Philip could only transfer the ownership from the Crown to the original settlers after nominating a parcel of land. This then had to be surveyed, and given a Lot number for identification.

Register of Lots
The officers of the Crown had then to make entries in the register of Lots. The title deed that ensued carried a Volume number, folio number and the Lot numbers.

A Grant in Fee Simple Title Deed
All land in Australia was sold into private hands through a Grant in Fee Simple Title. The new owner of this title was required to hold a Deed.

The original deeds were signed by the Governor of the State, after first determining that all purchase monies had been paid. “Now Know Ye that for and in consideration of the said sum for and on Our behalf well and truly paid into the Treasury of Our said State before these Presents are issued and of all and singular the premises, WE HAVE GRANTED and for Us Our heirs and Successors DO HEREBY GRANT unto the said H.W.T, Heirs and Assigns.......subject nevertheless to the several and respective reservations hereinafter contained that We do Reserve unto Us Our Heirs and Successors all minerals…..”

The Governor signed “In witness whereof I have hereunto signed my name and affixed my Seal….”

This then, is a very legal Instrument of Law, a Contract with not just with the Crown via the Seal, but with the actual Sovereign Majesty, his/her Heirs and Successors.

This Instrument is a Deed in Trust with the current Queen Elizabeth as the Successor to the Crown; it is a Trust in Inheritance and a Trust in Equity. That means that the act of purchase of a Grant in Fee Simple Title carries the right to pass on the estate through an Inheritance, a right which is protected by the Constitutional courts of Australia.

A Trust in Equity is the purchaser’s right to retain his equity (equality) of value in his land. So that when the Parliament requires the resumption of the land the Crown has sold, it must be under Just Terms Compensation.

What does a Grant in Fee Simple Title give us?
There are 4 elements of ownership that are carried in a Fee Simple Title Deed.
1. The purchase of any structures or buildings that are on the land - tenements
2. The right to build any structures of any kind on the land - messuages
3. The right of ownership of all natural elements on the land, to an indefinite extent
above the land, and to the very centre of the earth – corporeal hereditaments
4. The right to use the land in any manner including to waste the land. (Waste
being a legal term meaning to take back to bare rock or destroy) – incorporeal
hereditaments

The rights DO NOT include:
1. Ownership of any water on the land as water cannot be owned, as it is moveable. You have only the use of the water while it is on the land.
2. The right to injure a neighbour’s enjoyment and use of his property.
3. The right to trespass on another’s land without his permission.

Proprietorship of a Grant in Fee Simple Title
This is the legal term for our ownership. We are proprietors of the Fee Simple Grant. Which means we operate the Title
during the period of our ownership. Our proprietory rights are often called ‘natural rights’. We hold a Proprietas plena – full property, including not only the title, but the usufruct, or exclusive right to the use.

Proprietorship of a Grant in Fee Simple Title
This is the legal term for our ownership. We are proprietors of the Fee Simple Grant. Which means we operate the Title during the period of our ownership. Our proprietory rights are often called ‘natural rights’.

We hold a Proprietas plena – full property, including not only the title, but the usufruct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usufruct), or exclusive right to the use.

Tenants in Common
Our Grant in Fee Simple Title deed lists the new owner as a Tenant in Common. This refers to the fact that we share an Interest in the land with the Crown through the reservation of the minerals.

However the only right the Crown reserves is that listed on the Title Deeds. Also, in the event that we die without heirs, the Crown resumes sole ownership of the land (escheat).

The reference to Common is verification that our land ownership is a Common Law element, so removing Common Law or Old System Title would indicate that these are attempts to remove proof of our Common Law tenancy with the Crown in the form of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her Heirs and Successors – who are not Parliaments.

Can Part of a Fee Simple Grant be Sold?
No. The elements of ownership in a Grant in Fee Simple Title are attached to the land itself. We simply manage that
ownership for a period of time. To sell land with one or more elements removed is to sell something completely different.

And to then call the land title Fee Simple would be fraudulent.

For example, one owner may place natural elements of land under a covenant, removing these elements from ownership use, however at the moment a sale is completed the new owner has the return of all rights inherent in the Title.

These rights are not the owner’s to remove or separate, they belong to the land. It has been said that we simply attach ourselves to the immense rights for the period of ownership.

What is Freehold Title?
Many people believe they own their land under a Freehold Title. They do not! However, Public servants and the documents they provide sometimes use the expression Freehold for land ownership because it does not carry the rights of the true title of Fee Simple.

A Freehold Title only gives the owner the right to buy, sell and inherit land – no other rights are included. Freehold is a part of the Fee Simple Title, the expression being ‘mergeable therein.’
There are also some references to trespass court cases which are interesting.

I think there is some good information here (http://www.clrg.info/wp-content/uploads/Flora-News-Dec-2008-Fee-Simple-Explained.pdf).

http://www.clrg.info/wp-content/uploads/Flora-News-Dec-2008-Fee-Simple-Explained.pdf

There is a second PDF on Land Ownership rights in Australian Common Law (http://www.clrg.info/wp-content/uploads/FLORA-Freedom-Land-Ownership-Rights-in-Australia-Common-Law.pdf). I have not read that one yet.

thanks to CRLG.

palani
20th September 2011, 05:59 AM
This then, is a very legal Instrument of Law, a Contract with not just with the Crown via the Seal, but with the actual Sovereign Majesty, his/her Heirs and Successors.

Should you choose to own property through this contract don't be surprised if the terms are most favorable to the crown.

Who dictates that you MUST engage in a contract with anyone to make claim to land? Possession is, as it were, the position of the foot. Offer something attractive to the previous occupant, move in when he vacates, erect your markers, publish your notice, notify your neighbors and prepare to defend what is yours. What is lacking is agreeing to participate in a contract with any titular heads.

Glass
20th September 2011, 07:45 AM
I agree palani but I'm thinking a bit sideways on this one. I think the question of which Crown you are dealing with needs to be considered. My thoughts go like this:

If in commerce we are dealing with the Crown Corporation and in common law we might deal with the actual Crown E.R. Then if we were to claim a Fee Simple title then wouldn't we be moving that land title away from the Corporation and back toward the Crown. E.R.? Probably more correct to say away from equity toward common law.

The Govt of Aust (at least) is prohibited from moving against the Crown. So if you had an agreement with the Crown, perhaps after notice and being ignored (agreement by Acquiescence) then in theory the Govt cannot move against you. They will of course but if you know your stuff the argument should be pretty straight forward. Of course you don't want to argue but you might at least have to discuss it.

The Queen is a public servant by way of the Settlement Act 1701. There are some other issues such as being in administration AND no one knowing that she is not a true or divine Sovereign, merely an actor in the role. So if this knowledge is not to become wide spread then cats can't be let out of bags. So even though there are really two Crowns in operation no one in govt will move against any one that looks like it is the Crown.

As to ownership, crown lands, government control over there is some interesting stuff. The local government act of my state clearly says that Crown land is off limits to them and that a land owner can be someone in posession of Crown land even without documents. A claim is all that is needed. I think that ties in well with the Land Admin act.

palani
20th September 2011, 11:59 AM
Sorry. No half way measures are possible. You are entirely independent or you are entirely subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River

The Principality of Hutt River, previously known as the Hutt River Province, is the oldest micronation in Australia. The principality claims to be an independent sovereign state having achieved legal status on 21 April 1972, although it remains unrecognized except by other micronations.

The principality is located 517 km north of Perth, near the town of Northampton.

The principality was founded on 21 April 1970 by Leonard George Casley when he and his associates proclaimed their secession from the state of Western Australia.

Glass
20th September 2011, 03:14 PM
I have been there and spoken with PL. He is a Freemason and used his "brotherhood" links to achieve what he did. But I think he is the perfect example of what I am talking about. He has declared his allegience to the Crown and has declared himself custodian of the land FOR the Queen. He didn't take it from her. He took it from the Crown Corporation and put it back under the Crown E.R.

He did exactly what is described can be done in the Fee Simple explanation I linked to.

palani
20th September 2011, 04:30 PM
He has declared his allegience to the Crown and has declared himself custodian of the land FOR the Queen. He didn't take it from her. He took it from the Crown Corporation and put it back under the Crown E.R.


Truly things that are impossible to alien are also imposible to lien. Once a property is registered with the corporate side then banks are willing to loan money (secured debt). The banker is less willing to make a deal on unsecure(able) property. Equity would represent the property in its alienable state. Common law (Law) represents land that is unalienable.

I doubt if the queen has many liens to contend with.

Glass
20th September 2011, 07:17 PM
Truly things that are impossible to alien are also imposible to lien. Once a property is registered with the corporate side then banks are willing to loan money (secured debt). The banker is less willing to make a deal on unsecure(able) property. Equity would represent the property in its alienable state. Common law (Law) represents land that is unalienable.

I doubt if the queen has many liens to contend with.

The Queen only has one lien to contend with and that is the one the Pope holds over the assets of the original royal family. That lien is for everything so she is 100% in.

As for the land, it is clear that the common law title can't be extinguished, however it can be papered over which is what happened with the Land Administration Acts. The information in the link clearly confirms that the original title is not gone and can never be gone. It can be diverted or captured and then claimed to be something else..... like a Freehold Title. And there are ways to recover that original title and hold it back under common law and out of equity.

Bigjon
20th September 2011, 08:26 PM
I have been there and spoken with PL. He is a Freemason and used his "brotherhood" links to achieve what he did. But I think he is the perfect example of what I am talking about. He has declared his allegience to the Crown and has declared himself custodian of the land FOR the Queen. He didn't take it from her. He took it from the Crown Corporation and put it back under the Crown E.R.

He did exactly what is described can be done in the Fee Simple explanation I linked to.

How do you distinguish between "The Crown" or the City of London and The Queen?

FreeEnergy
20th September 2011, 09:29 PM
in for future read

Glass
20th September 2011, 09:52 PM
How do you distinguish between "The Crown" or the City of London and The Queen?

Hello Bigjon. You can work the assumption that because the King James deal with the Pope Innocent was reneged on and the Pope called in the debt, that the UK Sovereigns are in fact figure heads only and all "land" vested in them is "entitled" to the Pope.

You could also look to the historical record of these events and use that as your guide.

You could also look to the execution of the last reigning monarch of GB & Wales and then the consequent changes to the Parliament and Government structure creating a republic.

You could look to who acts as Administrator of the UK for the Pope, AKA City of London.

You could look at the Actors in Government and determine if they are acting in their true names or in their commerical names by searching and determining if any of the players have a registered company in their name. Perhaps the Prime Minister, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps the Queen. Perhaps the Government of GB & Wales have a registered company and are trading under that.

Who registered those companies? Who signed the paper work and in what capacity?

The thing to get is that the Queen and the Crown Corporation are linked but that the Queen is the mascot or the Logo of the Crown. Just like Ronald McDonald is the mascot for that company that claims to manufacture food. Ronald does not own McDonalds. He is simply the mascot. The beauty of mascots is that they are not linked to the identity of the man/woman in the clown suit. The suit can be filled by any old clown and people would be none the wiser.

How many people have filled the Mickey Mouse suit? Plenty. Do they own it? No, they do not.

The Settlement Act 1701 UK lays out the employment contract for the Queen to be the mascot of GB & Wales. In exchange for being the figure head/mascot she gets money, property and titles BUT she does not get Authority or Administrative privelages. For some reason, after they, the creditors conspired to kill the King, they decided that a republic was unwise. I suspect this was because it triggered a civil war in England that raged until the end of the century (about 5 or 6 years) when they happened to call in a ringer from a Euro Royal family to fill the role. Because they were not divine sovereigns they have a contract. It's perpetual for heirs and successors but that simply indicates it is based on a kind of letters patent.

The flip side of this is that the masses do not know this and can't be allowed to know so any time you call on the Soveriegns name they can't touch you. Thats how I see it these days.

palani
21st September 2011, 05:03 AM
The Queen only has one lien to contend with and that is the one the Pope holds over the assets of the original royal family. That lien is for everything so she is 100% in.

Crown property held in trust is not alienable. As you say the assets of the original royal family might be stuck to the pope (I have heard this but not verified it) that connection cannot attach to anything the royal family holds in trust for others.

The crown jewels are alienable. The royal forests are not. These forests are for the wealth of the realm (a trust).