Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to bruncher,mark88man,stirlo,johnstevens77,Rhyd6, for Donating to support the site

Redemption payment farce

Clitheroekid
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1989
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
Has thanked: 852 times
Been thanked: 2047 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#347409

Postby Clitheroekid » October 13th, 2020, 3:08 pm

unperplex wrote:The one exception to this would, theoretically be a VERY OLD unregistered title, where old documents do carry the title. However this is (a) very rare indeed and (b) have to be a property which has not been sold or mortgaged for a VERY LONG time (maybe 50 or 100 years or more)

This is not particularly rare at all, neither is the period 50, still less 100 years.

Compulsory registration was brought in as a rolling programme, starting in Central London in the 1920's and ending up in the most rural areas at the end of 1990. So if you own a house in, say, rural Suffolk, that's not been transferred or mortgaged since November 1990 the title will still be unregistered, meaning that if you do want to sell or mortgage it you will have to prove title by the production of title deeds.

This provides lots of entertainment for the few solicitors left who can still happily deal with unregistered conveyancing - the reaction of the average 25 year old, completely unqualified `conveyancing executive' to being presented with an unregistered title for approval is often hilarious.

You might be surprised how often such titles crop up in practice - I'm dealing with a woman whose parents completed the purchase of the house she's living in on 1 September 1939, just two days before war broke out!

and (c) I cannot conceive of a mortgagee lending on an unregistered title without the title having to be registered.

Lenders are perfectly happy to lend on unregistered titles, but probably only because mortgaging the property triggers the need for first registration of the title.

unperplex
Lemon Pip
Posts: 62
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 6:22 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Redemption payment fa

#348391

Postby unperplex » October 16th, 2020, 9:53 pm

Quite so, CK. Your comments on unregistered titles in general are sound.
I myself came across them in practise from time to time.They are somewhat more common than a ‘layman’ might imagine.
They occasionally seemed to crop up (sorry for the pun) in relation to farms, where the land had been passed from one generation to another by will followed by assent (which transmission as far as I recollect, did not trigger first registration, at that time, anyway).
However I was commenting specifically in the context of the “value” (or otherwise ) of deeds held by mortgagees after the mortgage had effectively been paid off. In that scenario, if the original mortgage (of unregistered land) had been given so long ago that it did not trigger first registration, then the documents held by the mortgagee might still be “valuable” in that they would be needed to prove title, but the mortgage would have had to have been granted so long ago that this would, as I said, be “very rare”.

unperplex
Lemon Pip
Posts: 62
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 6:22 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#348392

Postby unperplex » October 16th, 2020, 10:13 pm

Your comments on the reaction of a “paralegal” to an unregistered title remind me of a local barrister I came across in my youth, who had a little sideline in giving opinions on titles which involved the provisions of the Settled Land Act 1925. He regarded these provisions as very straightforward and was mightily amused by the numbers of solicitors who felt they needed his opinion.

Mike4
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1381
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 216 times
Been thanked: 494 times

Re: Redemption payment fa

#348396

Postby Mike4 » October 16th, 2020, 10:19 pm

unperplex wrote:Quite so, CK. Your comments on unregistered titles in general are sound.
I myself came across them in practise from time to time.They are somewhat more common than a ‘layman’ might imagine.
They occasionally seemed to crop up (sorry for the pun) in relation to farms, where the land had been passed from one generation to another by will followed by assent (which transmission as far as I recollect, did not trigger first registration, at that time, anyway).
However I was commenting specifically in the context of the “value” (or otherwise ) of deeds held by mortgagees after the mortgage had effectively been paid off. In that scenario, if the original mortgage (of unregistered land) had been given so long ago that it did not trigger first registration, then the documents held by the mortgagee might still be “valuable” in that they would be needed to prove title, but the mortgage would have had to have been granted so long ago that this would, as I said, be “very rare”.


Indeed and from memory, a mortgage for more than 25 years was virtually unheard of until relatively recently. Certainly very rare indeed 30 years ago in 1990 AFAIK.

richlist
Lemon Slice
Posts: 788
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:54 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: Redemption payment farce

#350811

Postby richlist » October 26th, 2020, 5:10 pm

My first mortgage in 1973 at the age of 21 was for 30 years.
I guess if I still owned the property it would be unregistered.


Return to “Mortgages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests