Very interesting but I have a question if you don't mind. When purchasing a motor vehicle why is the certificate of manifest not given to the purchaser. Dose this render the State the one with any equitable intrest? Thank you.
Hi, just a question as I'm confused. I understand that both legal and equitable interest are both types of proprietary rights and proprietary rights are supposedly binding to a purchaser. However, are they both binding to a purchaser or not? Are all proprietary rights binding to a purchaser or is it only legal interests that are binding?
You could talk about loads of different cases, as distinguishing whether an interest is legal or equitable can often be a point of contention! Is there something in particular you are looking to understand more about?
It would help if you simplified your words instead of using the same terms as the silde. Please consider this for the future for new learners. Thank you.
Hey! Thanks for your comment and interest in my videos. These videos have been created primarily with reference to UK law and other commonwealth countries, however, there may be some applicability to US laws too.
Does equity provide a remedy for a beneficiary whose trustee is dealing unconscionably with the trust property? As I comprehend it the beneficiary will have standing, but not capacity to bring an action against the trustee (let's call him John Smith). I had read that a beneficiary can stand in the shoes of his trustee to protect his beneficial interest. Assuming this is correct would the beneficiary launch court proceedings in the name John Smith, such that the case would be John Smith v John Smith? Or am I completely lost here?
@@tevval7434 A good question. The action is like unto subrogation. However the beneficiary has not discharged a debt or duty of the trust so I am not certain that subrogation applies. As I comprehend subrogation a pre-cursor to its operation is the discharge of a debt or duty on behalf of the subrogee. For example I believe an insurance company can't subrogate to the insured's rights until they payout to the insured. With a trust a beneficiary lacks capacity. To gain capacity the beneficiary must step into the trustee's shoes and use the trustee's name. I am not sure this mechanism has been given a specific name like 'subrogation'. This is based on law texts I have read which touched on the issue without explaining the details of the mechanism so I am hoping to fill in the blanks. It could be subrogation but as I said it seems to lack the trigger I thought was a precursor to subrogation.
What details do you have to getting into private chambers with a chancellor and having the proof of trust and him doing a final decree on the birth certificate trust?
Hi, just a quick question. I was wondering whether an easement would take effect in equity if it is made by deed under s52(1) but is not registered. If so, would you be able to explain how this would operate under the Law of Property Miscellaneous Privisions Act s2 please. Thanks :)
Easements are legal rights in rem and will achieve legal status if created by a valid deed and registered. If it isn't registered it may still take effect in equity, yes, in the same way as a pre-conferment contract (Parker v Taswell (1858)). However, for the easement to take effect in equity it must comply with the Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Ac s.2, which tells you that the failed grant of the legal easement must have been made in signed writing! I hope that helps 😁
Hey, thanks for your message! Property law and the law of equity certainly have a number of areas where they overlap, but they are separate and you should learnt them as separate topics 😊
Subscribe to my personal channel for videos on how to study law effectively & efficiently: ua-cam.com/channels/wgN8QVt3yIqcoi04EVqEYA.html
Very interesting but I have a question if you don't mind. When purchasing a motor vehicle why is the certificate of manifest not given to the purchaser. Dose this render the State the one with any equitable intrest? Thank you.
Hi, just a question as I'm confused. I understand that both legal and equitable interest are both types of proprietary rights and proprietary rights are supposedly binding to a purchaser. However, are they both binding to a purchaser or not? Are all proprietary rights binding to a purchaser or is it only legal interests that are binding?
Hi, very well explained. What cases can we refer to distinguish between legal and equitable interests?
You could talk about loads of different cases, as distinguishing whether an interest is legal or equitable can often be a point of contention! Is there something in particular you are looking to understand more about?
Hi, can you please make a video lesson on 'overriding interests' many thanks
It would help if you simplified your words instead of using the same terms as the silde. Please consider this for the future for new learners. Thank you.
Look up words you don’t know, everything can’t be soon fed to you
Such a helpful video thank you!!!
Hello, I have a question. Can one create a legal interest in an equitable estate such as equitable leasehold/freehold?
Thankyou so much very well explained 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
No problem, I am happy to hear that you found the video helpful! 👍🏻
Hi! I want to learn from your videos but first I want to know if the same terms and rules apply to the United States, specifically Minnesota. Thanks!
Hey! Thanks for your comment and interest in my videos. These videos have been created primarily with reference to UK law and other commonwealth countries, however, there may be some applicability to US laws too.
Gareth Evans thanks!
Does equity provide a remedy for a beneficiary whose trustee is dealing unconscionably with the trust property? As I comprehend it the beneficiary will have standing, but not capacity to bring an action against the trustee (let's call him John Smith). I had read that a beneficiary can stand in the shoes of his trustee to protect his beneficial interest. Assuming this is correct would the beneficiary launch court proceedings in the name John Smith, such that the case would be John Smith v John Smith? Or am I completely lost here?
Is this considered’ subrogation’???
@@tevval7434 A good question. The action is like unto subrogation. However the beneficiary has not discharged a debt or duty of the trust so I am not certain that subrogation applies. As I comprehend subrogation a pre-cursor to its operation is the discharge of a debt or duty on behalf of the subrogee. For example I believe an insurance company can't subrogate to the insured's rights until they payout to the insured.
With a trust a beneficiary lacks capacity. To gain capacity the beneficiary must step into the trustee's shoes and use the trustee's name. I am not sure this mechanism has been given a specific name like 'subrogation'.
This is based on law texts I have read which touched on the issue without explaining the details of the mechanism so I am hoping to fill in the blanks. It could be subrogation but as I said it seems to lack the trigger I thought was a precursor to subrogation.
What details do you have to getting into private chambers with a chancellor and having the proof of trust and him doing a final decree on the birth certificate trust?
@@tevval7434 I think this is the wrong forum for that question.
😉 agreed I Still have questions... I’m on fb if you wanna spit some more on this...
Love this video ! So helpful ! Thank You so much ! Wish you were my law tutor !
Thank you very much! 😀
Hi, just a quick question. I was wondering whether an easement would take effect in equity if it is made by deed under s52(1) but is not registered. If so, would you be able to explain how this would operate under the Law of Property Miscellaneous Privisions Act s2 please.
Thanks :)
Easements are legal rights in rem and will achieve legal status if created by a valid deed and registered. If it isn't registered it may still take effect in equity, yes, in the same way as a pre-conferment contract (Parker v Taswell (1858)). However, for the easement to take effect in equity it must comply with the Law of Property Miscellaneous Provisions Ac s.2, which tells you that the failed grant of the legal easement must have been made in signed writing! I hope that helps 😁
Thank you well explained .
No problem, glad you enjoyed the video!
hey, awesome job at this video! the true mvp
Hey!
My question is "whether property law is a law of Equity"?
Hey, thanks for your message! Property law and the law of equity certainly have a number of areas where they overlap, but they are separate and you should learnt them as separate topics 😊
Any chance you could respond to my previous comment?