Property law: title vs possession In property law what is the difference between Title and Possession? They basically sound like the same thing to me.
Title is legal ownership. Possession is immediate control, often but not always physical control. For example, if I buy a book and lend it to my friend A, I have title to it, but A has possession. Or if I rent a house, the landlord has title (or possibly the landlord's bank does) but I have possession. If a thief steals something, the thief has possession, but not title. Some kinds of property have a registered or written title. For example, land and houses usually do, and in many jurisdictions automobiles also do. Those will show the legal owner, and may well also show outstanding loans for which the property is collateral. The law may require that the written title be signed over, and/or that the transaction be recorded with a governmental authority and a new written title issued, when ownership of such property is transferred. &quot;Lawful possession&quot; includes a lent or rented item of property, but not a stolen one — a thief does not have lawful possession.
You are deeply confused, probably by the blogs of a conspiracy theorist (perhaps discussing the Sovereign Citizen Movement mentioned in the comments), whom it would be helpful for you to reference. In fact, people with and without lawyers claim common law rights in the ordinary courts of the UK every day, in the lion's share of civil lawsuits. For example: There is a common law right to sue for damages when someone breaches a contract by not paying a bill that they owe. A defendant, meanwhile, has a common law right to defend against such a suit on grounds, for example, that the debt has been paid or that the debt is not owed because there was no agreement to pay in the first place. The substantive right of an owner of real property to evict a tenant who breaches a lease arises at common law, even though statutes spell out the process for enforcing that right. Furthermore, the way that ownership of real property is established (i.e. through a chain of title involving purchases by deeds) likewise arises at common law. The defendant meanwhile has a common law defense to a claim for rent for the remainder of the period in a lease after an eviction for failure of the landlord to mitigate damages if the landlord does not make a reasonable effort to find a new tenant. The right to sue someone who negligently caused an accident that injured you is a common law right.
Depends where you are At common law, theft (or more generally, larceny) requires an intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession. However, many jurisdictions have removed this element from the crime. For example, s118 of the new-south-wales Crimes Act 1900 says: 118 Intent to return property no defence Where, on the trial of a person for larceny, it appears that the accused appropriated the property in question to the accused's own use, or for the accused's own benefit, or that of another, but intended eventually to restore the same, or in the case of money to return an equivalent amount, such person shall not by reason only thereof be entitled to acquittal.
Joint tenancy (as opposed to tenancy in common) would accomplish all of these goals. Joint tenancy gives each individual the absolute right to occupy the property (each person owns the whole property). If one dies the property automatically passes to the other joint tenant(s), which is known legally as the right of survivorship. The child(ren) could never force the parent(s) (other joint tenants) to vacate the property; on the inverse, however, the parent(s) could not deny the child(ren) the ability to also possess the property during their lives, if they so chose to do this. I am assuming if the children ran into hard times and needed to live there, it wouldn't be a problem, but this should be specifically addressed with the client. For a valid joint tenancy to be created, you would simply need to have: a. Unity of title: whereby the joint tenants must hold title to the property under one document (i.e., the title deeds); b. Unity of time: the joint tenancy must start and end on the same date for all the joint tenants (end date being the death of the final joint tenant, who will/should have passed through will/trust to an heir the title interest; c. Unity of possession: all joint tenants have equal rights to possess the whole property (as mentioned above, the children could occupy); d. and finally, Unity of interest: joint tenants must have equal interests in the whole of the property. This is the simplest way to do this while meeting all objectives.
They are both “documents” under most rules of evidence Basically, there are only two sorts of evidence: Testimony. What a witness says to the court. Although, in practice a lot of testimony is said out of court and given in writing but it’s still testimony. Documentary. Everything else.
There is no significant difference between the two and it is simply a matter of (modern) legal writing style. Traditionally, contracts were always written in the third person, but starting sometime in the late 20th century (if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say sometime in the 1980s), the innovation of writing in the first and/or second person was developed and found to be more readable for most people, especially in contracts of adhesion.
Ownership is different from sovereignty Sovereignty means the right and power to make and enforce laws. Ownership means having property rights over something. Put simply, the United States (Federal and States considered collectively) has sovereignty over everything in the US (and some things outside) but everything in the US is not owned by the US. It’s owned by a bunch of different entities: individuals (US and non-US citizens), corporations (foreign and domestic), local, state and Federal governments etc. Ownership rights are subservient to sovereignty - the government may pass a law restricting what you can do with your property because they have sovereignty over it. Can you exert your rights to that airspace? Of course, however, the invention of aircraft required modification to the right of exclusive ownership. From United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946): (a) The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261. (b) The air above the minimum safe altitude of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority is a public highway and part of the public domain, as declared by Congress in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, as amended by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261, 328 U. S. 266. (c) Flights below that altitude are not within the navigable air space which Congress placed within the public domain, even though they are within the path of glide approved by the Civil Aeronautics Authority. Pp. 328 U.S. 263-264. (d) Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. Pp. 328 U. S. 261-262, 328 U. S. 264-267. This is a perfect example of the difference between ownership and sovereignty. People used to own the airspace “up to heaven” then the sovereign in the shape of the US Government changed the rules so now they don’t. Whether you can sell the airspace above your property depends on whether the sovereign (the US) has a law that allows or prohibits the splitting of airspace rights from the underlying land. I know such a split is usually possible with water and mineral rights. Exclusive sovereignty in the case of a Federal nation like the US means that only the Federal government has power. When only the states have power it’s called residual power and when power is shared it’s called concurrent.
One option is to bring a civil lawsuit to obtain a court order for the return of your property, something that usually proceeds on an expedited schedule (often one to three weeks from filing to an order). The traditional name of such a lawsuit is "replevin" although the modern and minority terminology for this kind of lawsuit is civil action for "claim and delivery." You could ask the police to intervene, and they might do so, but are not required to do so without a court order. This can take the form of a criminal theft charge, or could take the form of what is called a "civil assist" when the individual comes to the place where the property is held in the presence of law enforcement which assures a peaceful transfer. Sometimes a court in another matter such as a divorce, or domestic violence criminal case, will enter an order authorizing or directing that a civil assist take place. The appropriate remedy depends to some extent upon the reason given for not returning the property. One valid defense to not returning property is that a lease created a lien in the personal property left at the premises for unpaid rent, or a lien for moving and/or storage charges. The availability of such liens varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and based upon the precise details of the situation. Another valid defense would be that the person in possession of the property was not satisfied that they knew who owned it.