Treasure trove is an amount of money or coin, silver, plate, or bullion found hidden underground or in places such as cellars or attics, where the treasure seems old enough for it to be presumed that the true owner is dead and the heirs undiscoverable. The legal definition of what constitutes treasure trove and its treatment under law vary from country to country, from era to era; the term is often used metaphorically. Collections of articles published as a book are titled Treasure Trove, as in A Treasure Trove of Science; this was fashionable for titles of children's books in the early- and mid-20th century. Treasure trove, sometimes rendered treasure-trove means "treasure, found"; the English term treasure trove was derived from tresor trové, the Anglo-French equivalent of the Latin legal term thesaurus inventus. In 15th-century English the Anglo-French term was translated as "treasure found", but from the 16th century it began appearing in its modern form with the French word trové anglicized as trovey, trouve or trove.
The term wealth deposit has been proposed as a more accurate alternative. The term treasure trove is used metaphorically to mean a "valuable find", hence a source of treasure, or a reserve or repository of valuable things. Trove is used alone to refer to the concept, the word having been reanalysed as a noun via folk etymology from an original Anglo-French adjective trové. Treasure trove is therefore akin to similar Anglo-French or Anglo-French-derived legal terms whereby a post-positive adjective in a noun phrase has been reanalysed as a compound noun phrase, as in court martial, force majeure, Princess Royal. Phrases of this form are used either with the etymologically correct plural form or as rederived plural forms. In the case of treasure trove, the typical plural form is always treasure troves, with treasures trove found in historical or literary works. In Roman law, treasure trove was called thesaurus, defined by the Roman jurist Paulus as "vetus quædam depositio pecuniæ, cujus non extat memoria, ut jam dominum non habeat".
R. W. Lee, in his book The Elements of Roman Law, commented that this definition was "not quite satisfactory" as treasure was not confined to money, nor was there any abandonment of ownership. Under the emperors, if treasure was found on a person's own land or on sacred or religious land, the finder was entitled to keep it. However, if the treasure was found fortuitously, not by deliberate search, on another person's land, half went to the finder and half to the owner of the land, who might be the emperor, the fiscus, the city, or some other proprietor. According to Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius, as the feudal system spread over Europe and the prince was looked on as the ultimate owner of all lands, his right to the treasure trove became jus commune et quasi gentium in England, France and Denmark. An interpretation of Roman law regarding treasure troves makes an appearance in the 13th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the Parable of the Hidden Treasure is told by Jesus of Nazareth to the crowds surrounding him and his disciples.
In the parable, the treasure trove is hidden in a field, open country and anyone could conceivably discover something hidden in that location. It's assumed that the present owner has no knowledge or memory of the treasure; the finder of the treasure kept the trove secret until he could raise capital to purchase the land holding the trove. Selling all he had, the finder purchased the land and unearthed the trove and, as the finder and owner, he was entitled to the entire trove. Jesus compared the kingdom of Heaven to the trove, being of greater value than all a person's earthly wealth and a wise investment that not everyone understands at first, it has been said that the concept of treasure trove in English law dates back to the time of Edward the Confessor. Under the common law, treasure trove was defined as gold or silver in any form, whether coin, plate or bullion, hidden and rediscovered, which no person could prove he or she owned. If the person who had hidden the treasure was known or discovered it belonged to him or her or persons claiming through him or her such as descendants.
To be treasure trove, an object had to be – that is, more than 50% – gold or silver. Treasure trove had to be hidden with animus revocandi. If an object was lost or abandoned, it belonged either to the first person who found it or to the landowner according to the law of finders, that is, legal principles concerning the finding of objects. For this reason, the objects found in 1939 at Sutton Hoo were determined not to be treasure trove; the Crown had a prerogative right to treasure trove, if the circumstances under which an object was found raised a prima facie presumption that it had been hidden, it belonged to the Crown unless someone else could show a better title to it. The Crown could grant its right to treasure trove to any person in the form of a franchise, it was the duty of the finder, indeed of anyone who had acquired
Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property
Lost and abandoned property are categories of the common law of property which deals with personal property or chattel which has left the possession of its rightful owner without having directly entered the possession of another person. Property can be considered lost, mislaid or abandoned depending on the circumstances under which it is found by the next party who obtains its possession. There is an old saying that possession is nine-tenths of the law dating back centuries; this means that in most cases, the possessor of a piece of property is its rightful owner without evidence to the contrary. More colloquially, this may be called keepers; the contradiction to this principle is theft by finding, which may occur if conversion occurs after finding someone else's property. The rights of a finder of such property are determined in part by the status; because these classifications have developed under the common law of England, they turn on nuanced distinctions. The general rule attaching to the three types of property may be summarized as: A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, is entitled to keep abandoned property.
This rule varies by jurisdiction. Property is deemed to have been lost if it is found in a place where the true owner did not intend to set it down, where it is not to be found by the true owner. At common law, the finder of a lost item could claim the right to possess the item against any person except the true owner or any previous possessors; the underlying policy goals to these distinctions are to see that the property is returned to its true original owner, or "title owner." Most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes requiring that the finder of lost property turn it in to the proper authorities. In Britain, many public businesses have a dedicated Lost Property Office, which in the United States would be called a lost and found, where lost property can be reported and reclaimed free of charge. Many exceptions may be applied at common law to the rule that the first finder of lost property has a superior claim of right over any other person except the previous owner. For example, a trespasser's claim to lost property which he finds while trespassing is inferior to the claim of the respective landowner.
As a corollary to this exception, a landowner has superior claim over a find made within the non-public areas of his property, so if a customer finds lost property in the public area of a store, the customer has superior claim to the lost property over that of the store-owner, but if the customer finds the lost property in the non-public area of that store, such as an area marked "Employees Only," the store-owner will have superior claim, as the customer was trespassing when he found it. The status of finders as employees or tenants of the landowner complicates matters, because employees and tenants have legitimate access to non-public areas of a landowner's property that others would not, without trespassing. Employees and tenants, still lose superior claim over lost property to their employers or landlords if the property is found within the scope of their employment, or outside the actual leased area, respectively. For example, if the lost property is found by a tenant inside the walls of his leasehold, or by an employee embedded within the soil of an estate owned by his employer, the landowner of the property where it was found has a superior claim of right over that of the finder.
However, this is not always the case, as a long-term tenant who finds lost property within the leased area of his leasehold may have a superior claim over that of his landlord. While employers have a superior claim over lost property found by their employees, exceptions to this exist as well, as modern law sometimes grants the employee superior claim if turning over lost property to his employer is not part of his job description. Since animals are mobile and are thus capable of becoming lost on their own, the loss of property, a valuable animal has its own set of rules. A valuable animal that becomes lost does so by leaving its owner's real property and arriving on another property owner's land. Estrays are confined to domesticated animals, like livestock, not wild animals. Since common pets are not considered valuable animals and cats are never considered estrays. In many jurisdictions of the U. S. a person who discovers an estray will be required to file an affidavit of estray, along with its description, impound that animal in some way for a period of time.
If the estray is branded, the owner can be identified immediately. The owner of the estray will have a limited time frame in which to reclaim his property after a Notice of Estray is published, but on the expiration of such time another person or entity will be designated the new title owner of the property. Fees for impounding the estray will accumulate which the property owner will be responsible for paying; the status of a stray domestic animal is dependent on local jurisdictions. See Feral cat, Free-ranging dog. Given the significant number of feral dogs and cats, the finder of a lost dog or cat may have little or no restrictions to claiming the animal as his own property. Like animals, fugitive slave
Fixture (property law)
A fixture, as a legal concept, means any physical property, permanently attached to real property Property not affixed to real property is considered chattel property. Fixtures are treated as a part of real property in the case of a security interest. A classic example of a fixture is a building, which—in the absence of language to the contrary in a contract of sale—is considered part of the land itself and not a separate piece of property. Speaking the test for deciding whether an article is a fixture or a chattel turns on the purpose of attachment. If the purpose was to enhance the land the article is a fixture. If the article was affixed to enhance the use of the chattel itself, the article is a chattel. Chattel property is converted into a fixture by the process of attachment. For example, if a piece of lumber sits in a lumber yard it is a chattel. If the same lumber is used to build a fence on the land it becomes a fixture to that real property. In many cases, the determination of whether property is a fixture or a chattel turns on the degree to which the property is attached to the land.
For example, this problem arises in the case of a trailer home. In this case the characterization of the home as chattel or realty will depend on how permanently it is attached—such as whether the trailer has a foundation; the characterization of property as a fixture or as chattel is important. In most jurisdictions, the law respecting the registration of security against debt, or proof that money has been lent on the collateral of property, is different for chattels than it is for real property. For example, in the province of Ontario, mortgages against real property must be registered in the county or region's land titles office. However, mortgages against chattels must be registered in the province-wide registry set up under the Personal Property Security Act. In the case of a trailer home, whether it is a fixture or chattel has a bearing on whether a real property mortgage applies to the trailer. For example, most mortgages contain a clause that forbids the borrower from removing or demolishing fixtures on the property, which would lower the value of the security.
However, there have been cases where lenders lend money based on the value of the trailer home on the property, where that trailer is removed from the property. A chattel mortgage granted to allow a person to purchase a trailer home could be lost if the trailer is attached to real property; the law regarding fixtures can cause many problems with property held under a lease. Fixtures put in place by the tenant belong to the landlord if the tenant is evicted from the property; this is the case if the fixture could have been removed by the tenant while the lease was in good standing. For example, a chandelier hung by the tenant may become the property of the landlord. Although this example is trivial, there have been cases where heavy equipment incorporated into a plant has been deemed to have become fixtures though it was sold as chattels; because the value of fixtures exceeds the value of the land they are affixed to, lawsuits to determine whether a particular item is a chattel or a fixture are common.
In one case in Canada, a provincial government argued that a huge earth dam was a chattel, as it was only held in place by gravity and not by any type of affixation. In a sale of land, fixtures are treated as part of the land, may not be removed or altered by the seller prior to the transfer of the land. Fixtures are known in civil law as essential parts. An important exception to the usual treatment of fixtures is the category of trade fixtures —chattels installed by a tenant on leased commercial property for their use in a trade or business; these may always be removed by the tenant, so long as any damage to the structure caused by the removal is repaid or repaired. For example, business signage, display counters, store shelves, liquor bars, machining equipment are firmly, if not permanently, attached to the building or land. However, they remain personal property and can be removed by the tenant, since they are part of the tenant's business; the economic logic behind this exception for trade fixtures reckons that if tenants could not remove them landlords would bear the responsibility of outfitting their tenants with such equipment and materials.
By deduction, therefore, a trade fixture is not a fixture at all. Its name is misleading, since a fixture, by definition, is real property that must remain with the real estate when a seller sells it or a tenant leaves her lease. A trade "fixture" is not personal property of the tenant; the landlord does have some protection. Any damage to the real property caused by the tenant’s removal of trade fixtures must be repaired or paid for by the tenant. If a trade fixture is not removed when the tenant moves out, those trade fixtures become the landlord’s property through the process of accession. For example, if a restaurant goes bankrupt and the owner forgoes his right and the expense of removing all the kitchen equipment, dining booths and other trade fixtures, those trade fixtures become the landlord's property. In this manner, they will no longer be trade fixtures and can become regular fixtures, hence real property. In the absence of agreement between the parties, the doctrine of fixtures, subject to statute, operates to resolve contests concerning title to objects.
Whether a chattel by its nature, becomes a fixture by virtue of all the circumstances, surrounding their annexation to land, depends upon the purpose and degree of annexation. Semble, it is a mixed question of fact and law, to be determined objectively, the subjective int
A deed is any legal instrument in writing which passes, affirms or confirms an interest, right, or property and, signed, delivered, in some jurisdictions, sealed. It is associated with transferring title to property; the deed has a greater presumption of validity and is less rebuttable than an instrument signed by the party to the deed. A deed can be bilateral. Deeds include conveyances, licenses, patents and conditionally powers of attorney if executed as deeds; the deed is the modern descendant of the medieval charter, delivery is thought to symbolically replace the ancient ceremony of livery of seisin. The traditional phrase signed and delivered refers to the practice of seals. Agreements under seal are called contracts by deed or specialty. In some jurisdictions, specialties have a liability limitation period of double that of a simple contract and allow for a third party beneficiary to enforce an undertaking in the deed, thereby overcoming the doctrine of privity. Specialties, as a form of contract, are bilateral and can therefore be distinguished from covenants, being under seal, are unilateral promises.
At common law, to be valid and enforceable, a deed must meet several requirements: It must state on its face that it is a deed, using wording like "This Deed..." or "executed as a deed". It must indicate that the instrument itself conveys some thing to someone; the grantor must have the legal ability to grant the thing or privilege, the grantee must have the legal capacity to receive it. It must be executed by the grantor in presence of the prescribed number of witnesses, known as instrumentary witnesses. In some jurisdictions, a seal must be affixed to it. Affixing seals made persons parties to the deed and signatures optional, but seals are now outdated in most jurisdictions, so the signatures of the grantor and witnesses are primary, it must be delivered to and, in some jurisdictions, accepted by the grantee. Conditions attached to the acceptance of a deed are known as covenants. A deed indented or indenture is one executed in two or more parts according to the number of parties, which were separated by cutting in a curved or indented line known as the chirograph.
A deed poll is one executed in one part, by one party, having the edge polled or cut and includes simple grants and appointments. In the transfer of real estate, a deed conveys ownership from the old owner to the new owner, can include various warranties; the precise name and nature of these warranties differ by jurisdiction. However, the basic differences between them is the degree to which the grantor warrants the title; the grantor may give a general warranty of title against any claims, or the warranty may be limited to only claims which occurred after the grantor obtained the real estate. The latter type of deed is known as a special warranty deed. While a general warranty deed was used for residential real estate sales and transfers, special warranty deeds are becoming more common and are more used in commercial transactions. A third type of deed, known as a bargain and sale deed, implies that the grantor has the right to convey title but makes no warranties against encumbrances; this type of deed is most used by court officials or fiduciaries that hold the property by force of law rather than title, such as properties seized for unpaid taxes and sold at sheriff's sale, or an executor.
A so-called quitclaim deed is not a deed at all—it is an estoppel disclaiming rights of the person signing it to property. In some jurisdictions, a deed of trust is used as an alternative to a mortgage. A deed of trust is not used to transfer property directly, it is used in some states — California, for example — to transfer title to land to a “trustee” a trust or title company, which holds the title as security for a loan. When the loan is paid off, title is transferred to the borrower by recording a release of the obligation, the trustee's contingent ownership is extinguished. Otherwise, upon default, the trustee will liquidate the property with a new deed and offset the lender's loss with the proceeds. Deed of arrangement – document setting out an arrangement for a debtor to pay part or all outstanding debts, as an alternative to bankruptcy. Deed of assignment – document in which a debtor appoints a trustee to take charge of property to pay debts or wholly, as an alternative to bankruptcy.
Sanad spelt as sunnud, was a deed granted to the rulers of native princely states in British India confirming them in their ruling position in return for their allegiance to the British Raj. Since the extinction of the royal bloodline would be a ground for annexation of a principality by the British, some rulers were granted sanads of adoption. Devised as a reward for loyalty to British rule in India after the Indian rebellion of 1857, such deeds gave a ruler the right to adopt chosen heirs from local noble families in case of lack of direct issue. Among the rulers that were given sanads of adoption, Takht Singh, Jaswant Singh of Bharatpur, as well as the rulers of Nagod State, Samthar State and the Chaube Jagirs are worth mentioning; the main clauses of a deed of conveyance are: Premises Parties clause – sets out the names and descriptions of parties Recitals – narrates in chronol
An easement is a nonpossessory right to use and/or enter onto the real property of another without possessing it. It is "best typified in the right of way which one landowner, A, may enjoy over the land of another, B", it is similar to equitable servitudes. Easements are helpful for providing pathways across two or more pieces of property, allowing individuals to access other properties or a resource, for example to fish in a owned pond or to have access to a public beach. An easement is considered as a property right in itself at common law and is still treated as a type of property in most jurisdictions; the rights of an easement holder vary among jurisdictions. The common law courts would enforce only four types of easement: Right-of-way Easements of support Easements of "light and air" Rights pertaining to artificial waterwaysModern courts recognize more varieties of easements, but these original categories still form the foundation of easement law. An affirmative easement is the right to use another property for a specific purpose, a negative easement is the right to prevent another from performing an otherwise lawful activity on their own property.
For example, an affirmative easement might allow land owner A to drive their cattle over the land of B. A has an affirmative easement from B. Conversely, a negative easement might restrict A from putting up a wall of trees that would block B's mountain view, A has a negative easement from B; as defined by Evershed MR in Re Ellenborough Park Ch 131, an easement requires the existence of at least two parties. The party gaining the benefit of the easement is the dominant estate, while the party granting the benefit or suffering the burden is the servient estate. For example, the owner of parcel A holds an easement to use a driveway on parcel B to gain access to A's house. Here, parcel A is the dominant estate, receiving the benefit, parcel B is the servient estate, granting the benefit or suffering the burden. A private easement is held by private entities. A public easement grants an easement for a public use, for example, to allow the public an access over a parcel owned by an individual. In the US, an easement appurtenant is one that benefits the dominant estate and "runs with the land" and so transfers automatically when the dominant estate is transferred.
An appurtenant easement allows property owners to access land, only accessible through a neighbor's land. Conversely, an easement in gross benefits an individual or a legal entity, rather than a dominant estate; the easement can be for a commercial use. An easement in gross was neither assignable nor inheritable, but commercial easements are now transferable to a third party, they are divisible but must be exclusive and all holders of the easement must agree to divide. If subdivided, each subdivided parcel enjoys the easement. A floating easement exists when there is no fixed location, method, or limit to the right of way. For example, a right of way may cross a field, without any visible path, or allow egress through another building for fire safety purposes. A floating easement may be appurtenant or in gross. One case defined it as " easement defined in general terms, without a definite location or description, is called a floating or roving easement...." Furthermore, "a floating easement becomes fixed after construction and cannot thereafter be changed."
Some legal scholars classify structural encroachments as a type of easement. In British energy law and real property law, a wayleave is a type of easement used by a utility that allows a linesman to enter the premises, "to install and retain their cabling or piping across private land in return for annual payments to the landowner." Like a license or profit-à-prendre, " Wayleave is a temporary arrangement and does not automatically transfer to a new owner or occupier." More a wayleave agreement can be used for any service provider. In the United States, an easement in gross is used for such needs for permanent rights. An access easement provides access from a public right of way to a parcel of land. For example, if Zach and James own neighboring parcels of land, Zach's parcel may have easement rights to cross James's parcel from a public right of way. In such a case, Zach's "dominant" parcel would contain an access easement to cross James's "servient" parcel. Easements are most created by express language in binding documents.
Parties grant an easement to another, or reserve an easement for themselves. Under most circumstances having a conversation with another party is not sufficient. Courts have recognized creation of easements in other ways. An easement may express. An express easement may be "granted" or "reserved" in a other legal instrument. Alternatively, it may be incorporated by reference to a subdivision plan by "dedication", or in a restrictive covenant in the agreement of an owners association; the doctrines of contract law are central to disputes regarding express easements while disputes regarding implied easements apply the principles of property law. Implied easements are more complex and are determined by the courts based on the use of a property and the intention of the original parties, who can be private or public/government entities. I
Escheat is a common law doctrine that transfers the real property of a person who died without heirs to the Crown or state. It serves to ensure, it applied to a number of situations where a legal interest in land was destroyed by operation of law, so that the ownership of the land reverted to the superior feudal lord. The term "escheat" derives from the Latin ex-cadere, to "fall-out", via mediaeval French escheoir; the sense is of a feudal estate in land falling-out of the possession by a family into possession by the overlord. In feudal England, escheat referred to the situation where the tenant of a fee died without an heir or committed a felony. In the case of such demise of a tenant-in-chief, the fee reverted to the King's demesne permanently, when it became once again a mere tenantless plot of land, but could be re-created as a fee by enfeoffment to another of the king's followers. Where the deceased had been subinfeudated by a tenant-in-chief, the fee reverted temporarily to the crown for one year and one day by right of primer seisin after which it escheated to the over-lord who had granted it to the deceased by enfeoffment.
From the time of Henry III, the monarchy took particular interest in escheat as a source of revenue. At the Norman Conquest of England all the land of England was claimed as the personal possession of William the Conqueror under allodial title; the monarch thus became the sole "owner" of all the land in the kingdom, a position which persists to the present day. He granted it out to his favoured followers, who thereby became tenants-in-chief, under various contracts of feudal land tenure; such tenures the highest one of "feudal barony", never conferred ownership of land but ownership of rights over it, to say ownership of an estate in land. Such persons are therefore termed "land-holders" or "tenants", not owners. If held, to say by freehold, such holdings were heritable by the holder's legal heir. On the payment of a premium termed feudal relief to the treasury, such heir was entitled to demand re-enfeoffment by the king with the fee concerned. Where no legal heir existed, the logic of the situation was that the fief had ceased to exist as a legal entity, since being tenantless no one was living, enfeoffed with the land, the land was thus technically owned by either the crown or the immediate overlord as ultimus heres.
Logically therefore it was in the occupation of the crown alone, to say in the royal demesne. This was the basic operation of a failure of heirs. Escheat could take place if a tenant was outlawed or convicted of a felony, when the King could exercise the ancient right of wasting the criminal's land for a year and a day, after that the land would return to the lord. Since disavowal of a feudal bond was considered a felony, lords could escheat land from those who refused to be true to their feudal services. On the other hand, there were tenants who were sluggish in performing their duties, while not being outright rebellious against the lord. Remedies in the courts against this sort of thing in Bracton's day, were available, but were considered laborious and ineffectual in compelling the desired performance; the commonest mechanism would be distraint called distress: the lord would seize some chattel, hold it until performance was achieved. This practice had been dealt with in the 1267 Statute of Marlborough.
So, it remained the most common extrajudicial method applied by the lords at the time of Quia Emptores. Thus, under English common law, there were two main ways an escheat could happen: A person's property escheated if he was convicted of a felony. If the person was executed for the crime, his heirs were attainted, i.e. ineligible to inherit. In most common-law jurisdictions, this type of escheat has been abolished outright, for example in the United States under Article 3 § 3 of the United States Constitution, which states that attainders for treason do not give rise to posthumous forfeiture, or "corruption of blood". If a person had no heir to receive their property under a will or under the laws of intestacy any property he owned at death would escheat; this rule has been replaced in most common-law jurisdictions by a similar concept. From the 12th century onward, the Crown appointed escheators to manage escheats and report to the Exchequer, with one escheator per county established by the middle of the 14th century.
Upon the death of a tenant-in-chief, the escheator would be instructed by a writ of diem clausit extremum issued by the king's chancery, to empanel a jury to hold an "inquisition post mortem" to ascertain who the legal heir was, if any, what was the extent of the land held. Thus it would be revealed, it was important for the king to know who the heir was, to assess his personal qualities, since he would thenceforth form a constituent part of the royal army, if he held under military tenure. If there was any doubt, the escheator would sei
Deeds registration is a land management system whereby all important instruments which relate to the common law title to parcels of land are registered on a government-maintained register. Deeds registration systems were set up to facilitate the transfer of title; the system had been used in some common law jurisdictions and continues to be used in some jurisdictions, including most of the United States. It is being replaced by Torrens systems in many jurisdictions. Australia, Ireland as well as most Canadian provinces have converted from deeds registries to Torrens titles; some Canadian provinces have always used Torrens titles. Other Canadian provinces which have converted from a deeds registry to Torrens titles have operated both systems in conjunction until the Torrens system superseded the deeds registry system, as was the case in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick during the 2000s. In the Canadian province of Ontario, electronic registration led to Ontario's version of Torrens title covering all land, but the past deeds registration still governs some issues.
Hong Kong and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Labrador and Prince Edward Island are the only provinces left which still operate a deeds registration system. In contrast to the Torrens system in which the one who registered in a land registry as owner of a piece or parcel of land has an indefeasible title of the land, deeds registration system is a registration of all important instruments related to that land. In order to establish one's title to the land, a person will ascertain, for example: all the title documents have been properly executed, "a chain of title" is established, i.e. the proper ownerships from the granting of the land from the government to the current owner, there are no encumbrances on the land that will harm the title of the land. Since, in contrast to the Torrens system, the registry is a record of all instruments related to the land, the "owner" as shown on the land registry record does not mean that he has a "good title", which means a title, not defeasible or defeasible.
In a sale and purchase of land, a vendor is required to show a "good title" to the purchaser. Since the land search record is not conclusive, it leads to problems when a vendor has to prove his title, in particular when the land is old or involves multiple encumbrances; this may lead to litigation. In Hong Kong, the vendor is only required to prove his title up to 15 years prior to the date of the sale and purchase. Further, various legislative measures relieve the vendor's duty. For example, the vendor can rely on assumption that a recital of an instrument referring to matters prior to 15-year-old is true. In Ireland a vendor has to produce "a good root of title". A purchaser cannot insist that the root of title be more than 40 years old and the practice is to only insist on a minimal 20-year period because there is a presumption that the recitals in a conveyance for valuable consideration are true if that conveyance is at least 20 years old. Many jurisdictions have switched or are switching from a deeds registration system to a system of title registration.
For example, Hong Kong, one of the last common law jurisdictions to maintain a deed registration system, passed the Land Titles Ordinance in 2004, which will see Hong Kong shift to the Torrens system. The law will be implemented over a period of twelve years. However, there is no timetable for the commencement of the Ordinance as at 2016. Land registration Recording Recorder of deeds