Remainder or Reversion Leases

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Remainder or Reversion Leases

    Can someone please explain something as I sincerely do not know what I'm missing or not understanding.

    On our property there is a building that the neighbouring property occupies. It has been this way since at least the early 1900's

    As part of our pre-registration deeds for our property, it is clear to determine it has always formed the land of this property and it is not a boundary mistake.
    We have deciphered this through photos, OS Maps, conveyance plans, descriptions etc. It would be impossible for the building to be on any other land as it is solely attached to this property.
    It is also evident it can only be on this land because no adjoining land is owned.

    At this moment in time our property and the neighbouring property (which is simply a house with no surrounding land of its own) are leased/tenanted.
    It would appear at his moment in time the neighbouring properties tenants are in occupation of this building and sharing the garden/land of this property as it would be their only form of any access to their own property as well as any water/drainage to their property.

    In the neighbouring properties deeds there is reference to a 2000 lease and impeachment of wastes etc. I have no idea if/when this would have been ended and this dates back to the 1850's?


    In the 1920's our property deed says:

    The Vendor was immediately before the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and twenty six entitled during her life to the possession of the hereditaments hereby conveyed AND WHEREAS the Trustees were at that time the persons who under the same settlement were the trustees for the purposes of the Settled Land Act 1925 AND WHEREAS by virtue of the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Settled Land Act 1925 the hereditaments hereby conveyed became on the first day of January one thousand nine hundred and twenty six vested in the vendor in fee simple at law AND WHEREAS by a vesting deed dated fourth day of November one thousand nine hundred and twenty seven and made between the Trustees of the first part and the vendor of the other part the trustees declared that the hereditaments therein mentioned (being the hereditaments hereby conveyed) were vested in the Vendor upon the trusts and subject to the powers and provisions upon and subject to which under the settlement the same ought to be held from time to time And that the Trustees were the Trustees of the settlement for the purposes of the Settled Land Act 1925 AND WHEREAS the vendor in exercise of the power in this behalf conferred on her by the Settled Land Act 1925 as tenant for life of the hereditaments hereby conveyed has agreed to sell the unincumbered fee simple in possession of the said hereditaments to the Purchaser at the price of two hundred pounds NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH as follows:-
    1. In consideration of two hundred pounds paid by the Purchaser by the direction of the Vendor to the Trustees (the receipt of which sum the Trustees hereby acknowledge) the Vendor as Beneficial Owner in exercise of the power in this behalf conferred upon her by the said Act and of every other power her hereunto enabling hereby conveys unto the Purchaser ALL that messuage or dwellinghouse and garden with the rights easements and appurtenances thereto belonging situate at ..... TO HOLD the same unto the Purchaser in fee simple
    2. So far as regards the remainder or reversion expectant on the equitable estate of the Vendor in the hereditaments hereby assured and the title to and further assurance of the same hereditaments after her death the covenants on her part implied by virtue of the Law of Property Act 1925 shall extend only to the acts and defaults of the Vendor and persons now or hereafter claiming through or in trust for her
    From this deed, it is telling us this building forms part of this property when we relate to photos, maps, plans etc.

    What I am trying to figure out is:

    This section/building has always been occupied by the tenants of property 1.
    Property No 2 purchases the freehold including the building occupied by No 1.
    Property No 1 purchases the freehold of just the house (not the building they occupy) but they continue to occupy.
    Property No 2 becomes first registered and title includes this building
    Property No 1 becomes first registered and there title does not include this building but they are still in occupation.
    Property No 1's title makes reference to drainage which I try to find out online if this is a service charge/rent-charge/estate charge etc.
    Property No 1's drainage is over our property/this section

    The deed above refers to remainder or reversion of the estate. I find online this can also mean where there is such a similar scenario, when someone else such as a tenant is in occupation of another's land.

    I am also aware of leases being determined so are trying to undertand if/when this will have happened.

    I'm intent to find out what all this means and hope someone can explain if this could be some kind of overriding/reversionary lease?

    Thank You

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X