What happens with the ownership of land where the landowner no longer exists? When the houses in my area in England were built, a small patch of land remained unused / not build on. This was about 50 years ago. While all other land was sold off with the houses, this patch of land remained to be owned by the company that build the houses. About 30 years ago the owners dissolved the company. Land registry lists the dissolved company still as the owner, and the owners of the company can no longer be found. What happens to the ownership of this land? Will it now forever be owned by a no longer existing entity or can an official entity (like the local council) step in and take ownership?
In the general case, when a company is dissolved any assets still belonging to it becomes bona vacantia under Section 1012 of the Companies Act 2006 which means that it belongs to the Crown. The Crown can then choose to disclaim its rights to the asset under Section 1013, and typically will do this where there are risks involved (e.g. leasehold land). The effect of dislaimer, per Sections 1014 and 1015 is that the &quot;property is deemed not to have vested in the Crown&quot; and it terminates &quot;the rights, interests and liabilities of the company in or in respect of the property disclaimed&quot;. In the case of freehold land that is disclaimed, it escheats (transfers) to the Crown Estate and the freehold interest is extinguished. According to Practical Law (paywall): Note, if the land is registered, the registered title will remain and the Land Registrar may enter a notice on the Land Registry title if notified (rule 173, Land Registration Rules 2003). The notice will recite the fact of the liquidator's disclaimer or Crown disclaimer but will not otherwise specify that the land has passed by escheat. The Crown Estate then becomes entitled (but not obliged) to take possession of it. The Crown Estate will not assume any liabilities as owner of the land unless it does take possession or exercises control over the property. The result of this is that the only action the Crown Estate will generally take as regards escheated land is to sell the whole of the land to a suitable buyer who approaches the Crown Estate. You can read more about how the Crown Estate subsequently deals with such property (including if and how it sells the property) in their FAQs.
Inferring from the question, it appears that: The tenancy is an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The tenancy agreement started on 16 December 2014. The initial fixed term was for 12 months. (Please comment below if any of this is incorrect). A Section 21 order gives notice that, unless the tenant leaves by the date given in the document, the landlord will begin legal proceedings against the tenant, in order to obtain a court order forcing the tenant to leave. To answer the OP's questions: Does it mean that she wants to use her right to cancel the contract after 2 months? It looks like that to me but I am not 100% sure. Yes - but if this is before the end of the fixed term (which I'm assuming is 15 December) there must be a clause in the tenancy agreement (normally called a "break clause") allowing the fixed term to be terminated early. If there is no break clause, then you cannot be asked to leave before the end of the fixed term. What does it mean "after 16/11/2015"? After can mean anything... even end of contract in December. Yes. The landlord would like you to leave before the date shown - but if you don't, the landlord can begin legal proceedings any time after that. Is this a legal document or just something she made up? It is a legal document. Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 allows a landlord to ask a tenant to leave without having to give a reason. The landlord must meet certain conditions in order for the notice to be valid. What happens if I want to leave the house later because I don't find alternative? You'll need to discuss that with the landlord. However, if you don't leave by the end of the fixed term, you are entitled to stay (and pay rent!) until a court (not the landlord) orders your eviction. EDIT: This website goes into a lot more detail about the whole Section 21 procedure.
If you buy a house, you can generally rent out a room in the house, unless in that jurisdiction there is some law against renting rooms in houses (that's actually a condition in my neighborhood, one widely ignored). If it's legal to rent (lease) a room, it is generally legal to sub-lease that room – as long as that's allowed under the original lease contract. I have never heard of a jurisdiction that has a blanket prohibition against subleases. So as far as the actual question goes, the answer is, "yes". The links are about something a different, namely rent control law in San Francisco, and the question of whether a tenant can be evicted from a rent-controlled unit because the owner wants to move in to the unit. Owner move-in eviction requires a specific procedure for giving notice, and the links are about these requirements. Conceivably, though, the question could be whether a person can buy a house that is being rented out, do a proper owner move-in eviction, and then lease a spare room. The SF rent laws require a good faith intent to move in and use as the primary residence for 3 years, and nothing prohibit subsequently leasing a room. Those laws pertain to evictions, not re-rentals. (It should be noted that once eviction under section 37.9(a)(8) has been carried out on a unit in a building, no other unit in the building can ever be so recovered. That could mean that the room in the house could never again be recovered, if it is considered to be a separate "unit" from the "unit" that is the whole house).
Consult a lawyer These issues are quite common and their impact depends on your jurisdiction (usually local governments handle this) and the attitude of your potential lenders/buyers. In most cases, local governments have the power, in extremis, of ordering the demolition of unpermitted work. However, this is normally done only when the work is irredeemably unsafe or adversely affects the amenity of neighbours. More common might be an order to make good any defective work, possibly to current rather than historical codes after which they will retroactively grant the permissions. Some lenders will refuse to lend if there are unpermitted works. Others will only lend against the unimproved land value less the cost of demolition. The same is true of insurers. As for buyers, well, its making you stop and think, isn't it? Common solutions are to make your offer contingent on the current owner cleaning all this up before you close or offering less to cover the risks you are assuming. This may cause you to miss the property but that's the risk you run.
Directors don’t own companies - they manage them Shareholders own companies. So, if you are a director and die, the legal upshot is you are no longer a director and the company may need to replace you in accordance with its rules. If you are a shareholder, then, subject to any other contracts like a option for the company or other shareholders to buy the shares of a deceased shareholder, the shares will be distributed in accordance with your will or the laws of intestate succession if you don’t have a will. Whoever owns the shares with have the same rights as you did.
Can the seller enter a formal agreement with the tenants in which the seller pays a sum of money and in return the tenants vacate the premises before the closing date, and would such agreement hold over the tenants legal right to remain on premises past the closing date? Maybe. It depends on tenancy law in Nova Scotia. Notwithstanding, given that the tenants are “difficult”, what are your plans if they take the cash and don’t move out? What happens if the sale goes though under the assumption that the tenants have left, and in fact the tenants are still occupying the premises? Why would the buyer settle under an “assumption”? At the time of settlement either the tenants have left (so settlement happens) or the haven’t (so the vendor is in breach, settlement doesn’t happen and the buyer decides whether to rescind the contract and claim damages or affirm the contract and claim damages). What guarantees and proofs can the buyer demand as to the vacant status of the property? They take the keys and walk into it. What other questions should the buyer be asking? They should be asking: “Will you be in a position to fulfil your obligations under the contract?”
The general rule in the sale of a "used" house is "buyer beware", but the seller of a "used" house must disclose latent defects of which the seller is aware. (Different rules apply to the first buyer of a newly built house.) While a natural spring would not always be a defect, one that causes structural or foundation problems is clearly a defect. So, the two key questions are (1) whether the defect is one that could be discovered with a reasonable inspection, or whether it was instead "latent", and (2) whether the seller had knowledge of the defect. If the defect couldn't have been discovered with a reasonable inspection, and the seller was aware of it, but didn't sufficiently disclose it, then the seller has liability to you if you bring suit within the statute of limitations, equal to the damages you have suffered from the non-disclosure of the latent defect. Under the circumstances that you describe, where the evidence of the defect was hidden by a carpet, it seems plausible that this was a latent defect. So, the big question at this point is whether the seller was aware of the natural spring causing foundation/structure damage in the basement. This would depend upon facts and circumstances which you question does not provide an answer to, so the question can't be finally resolved.
If the common law applies (i.e. there is no statute that changes it) then it depends on if the item was lost, mislaid or abandoned. The US has statute law dealing with lost money but that is not the question here. Property is generally deemed to have been lost if it is found in a place where the true owner likely did not intend to set it down, and where it is not likely 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. Property is generally deemed to have been mislaid or misplaced if it is found in a place where the true owner likely did intend to set it, but then simply forgot to pick it up again. For example, a wallet found in a shop lying on a counter near a cash register will likely be deemed misplaced rather than lost. Under common law principles, the finder of a misplaced object has a duty to turn it over to the owner of the premises, on the theory that the true owner is likely to return to that location to search for his misplaced item. If the true owner does not return within a reasonable time (which varies considerably depending on the circumstances), the property becomes that of the owner of the premises. Property is generally deemed to have been abandoned if it is found in a place where the true owner likely intended to leave it, but is in such a condition that it is apparent that he or she has no intention of returning to claim it. Abandoned property generally becomes the property of whoever should find it and take possession of it first, although some states have enacted statutes under which certain kinds of abandoned property – usually cars, wrecked ships and wrecked aircraft – escheat, meaning that they become the property of the state. For your specifics: If I purchase merchandise in a physical store, and then (accidentally or not) leave the merchandise at the store after I've paid for it, is the store allowed to resell that merchandise to another customer? This would be mislaid property and if they cannot find you and you do not return to claim it after a reasonable time (which would be different for a Mars bar and a Boeing 747) then it is theirs and they can do what they want with it: including sell it to someone else. How does this scenario differ from leaving personal items at the store that I purchased elsewhere? It doesn't.