Land Law Degree Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Land Law Degree - Case Study Example Hence, the main issue is whether they have feasible options which would enable them to gain full or total control of their property. From this case study, it can only be implied that they were able to secure title register which in turn enabled them to be registered as joint proprietors of this property. However, according to the Law of Property Act 1989 section (1) (3), it should be noted that for them to be deemed to be the owners of the real estate property, they shall have to be in possession of a valid deed stating as such. According to this section, a deed may only be taken to be valid if it was produced in writing through signing by the seller of the land or property in the presence of witnesses who must also attest to the validity of such signature. The other option as it is provided by this Act is that the seller may direct, and in his presence as well as that of two witnesses; who must also append their signature. The third option which was available to Nitin and Miriam to them in terms of acquiring the deed was through the delivery of such document by Paul to them in person or by any other person who might have been authorised to do so. A closer look at this case study does not address these issues comprehensively. However, it is justifiable to infer that they were indeed able to obtain the deed subject to their registration. ... Most notably, ownership is usually accompanied with the rights of possession and enjoyment by the actual owners. On a positive rejoinder, Thomas (276) notes that proprietary rights carry with them the right of easements and profits as it is provided by the land law. With particular case, it is apparent that Nitin and Miriam have not been able to enjoy any of these rights. With particular reference to Amy, it is possible for them to sue for damages on grounds that Paul assigned or sublet part of the property without their consent. However, for this to hold, Nitin and Miriam shall have to prove that to the satisfaction of the court that indeed Paul made that decision after they had legally acquired the real estate property. That being the case, then they do not have to wait until next year since Amy is actually trespassing by virtue of the fact that she was assigned the stable block by a stranger; Paul having sold the property to them. In this regard, there is no legal lease agreement between the landlord and the tenant in the first place. With this in mind, Amy can be sued for trespassing on pr ivate property as well for damages and thus be able to collect the rent as the legitimate owner of this real estate property. On the other hand, Nitin and Miriam have legal grounds to withhold their consent of lease to Amy according to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988. Based this act, they have grounds owing to the fact that Amy is not an individual of an excellent character due to her drug abuse history. The fact that Amy is actually a noisy neighbour due to her music career provides another ground for Nitin and Miriam to evict her from their property even if such lease agreement was signed by Paul before the