DOCSLIB.ORG

Real Estate II: Issues in Ownership of Real Property

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Real Estate II: Issues in Ownership of Real Property Global Practice Guide Real Estate II: Issues in Ownership of Real Property A Global Practice Guide prepared by the Lex Mundi Real Estate Group This guide is part of the Lex Mundi Global Practice Guide Series which features substantive overviews of laws, practice areas, and legal and business issues in jurisdictions around the globe. View the complete series at: www.lexmundi.com/GlobalPracticeGuides. Lex Mundi is the world’s leading network of independent law firms with in-depth experience in 100+ countries. Through close collaboration, our member firms are able to offer their clients preferred access to more than 21,000 lawyers worldwide – a global resource of unmatched breadth and depth. Lex Mundi – the law firms that know your markets. www.lexmundi.com About this Guide This multi-part Guide of Issues in Real Estate Investment and Finance presents jurisdictional overviews of real estate investment and financing laws in jurisdictions around the world, covering the following four general topics: Part I -- Foreign Investment Part II -- Ownership of Real Property Part III – Finance Part IV – Leasing Table of Contents Argentina ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Australia ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Austria ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Bahamas ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Barbados .................................................................................................................................... 14 Belize ........................................................................................................................................... 17 Bolivia ......................................................................................................................................... 19 Brazil ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Canada, Alberta ........................................................................................................................ 23 Canada, British Colombia ...................................................................................................... 25 Canada, Manitoba .................................................................................................................... 27 Canada, Nova Scotia ............................................................................................................... 30 Canada, Ontario ........................................................................................................................ 33 Canada, Quebec ....................................................................................................................... 36 Cayman Islands ........................................................................................................................ 38 Jersey Channel Islands .......................................................................................................... 41 Chile ............................................................................................................................................. 43 Colombia .................................................................................................................................... 47 Cyprus ......................................................................................................................................... 51 Denmark ..................................................................................................................................... 54 Dominican Republic ................................................................................................................ 57 Estonia ........................................................................................................................................ 59 www.lexmundi.com Page 1 © 2012 Lex Mundi Finland ........................................................................................................................................ 65 Greece ......................................................................................................................................... 68 Iceland ......................................................................................................................................... 71 Ireland ......................................................................................................................................... 73 Jamaica ....................................................................................................................................... 75 Kuwait ......................................................................................................................................... 78 Latvia ........................................................................................................................................... 80 Lebanon ...................................................................................................................................... 83 Lithuania ..................................................................................................................................... 86 Malaysia ...................................................................................................................................... 89 New Zealand .............................................................................................................................. 92 Norway ........................................................................................................................................ 94 Pakistan ...................................................................................................................................... 97 Peru .............................................................................................................................................. 99 Philippines ............................................................................................................................... 102 Poland ....................................................................................................................................... 104 Portugal .................................................................................................................................... 107 Russia ....................................................................................................................................... 110 Romania .................................................................................................................................... 112 Scotland .................................................................................................................................... 115 Slovak Republic ...................................................................................................................... 118 South Africa ............................................................................................................................. 123 Spain .......................................................................................................................................... 126 Sri Lanka................................................................................................................................... 134 Thailand .................................................................................................................................... 138 Turkey ....................................................................................................................................... 141 Turks & Caicos Islands ........................................................................................................ 143 United Arab Emirates ............................................................................................................ 145 Uruguay .................................................................................................................................... 148 USA, Alabama ......................................................................................................................... 151 USA, Arizona ........................................................................................................................... 155 USA, Arkansas ........................................................................................................................ 158 USA, Colorado ........................................................................................................................ 160 USA, Connecticut ................................................................................................................... 162 www.lexmundi.com Page 2 © 2012 Lex Mundi USA, Delaware ........................................................................................................................ 165 USA, Florida............................................................................................................................. 167 USA, Hawaii ............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is So Special About Intangible Property? the Case for Intelligent Carryovers Richard A
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2010 What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The Case for intelligent Carryovers Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The asC e for intelligent Carryovers" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 524, 2010). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 524 (2D SERIES) What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The Case for Intelligent Carryovers Richard A. Epstein THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO August 2010 This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Chicago Working Paper Series Index: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT INTANGIBLE PROPERTY? THE CASE FOR INTELLIGENT CARRYOVERS by Richard A. Epstein* ABSTRACT One of the major controversies in modern intellectual property law is the extent to which property rights conceptions, developed in connection with land or other forms of tangible property, can be carried over to different forms of property, such as rights in the spectrum or in patents and copyrights.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Notices & the Courts
    PUBLIC NOTICES B1 DAILY BUSINESS REVIEW TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 dailybusinessreview.com & THE COURTS BROWARD PUBLIC NOTICES BUSINESS LEADS THE COURTS WEB SEARCH FORECLOSURE NOTICES: Notices of Action, NEW CASES FILED: US District Court, circuit court, EMERGENCY JUDGES: Listing of emergency judges Search our extensive database of public notices for Notices of Sale, Tax Deeds B5 family civil and probate cases B2 on duty at night and on weekends in civil, probate, FREE. Search for past, present and future notices in criminal, juvenile circuit and county courts. Also duty Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach. SALES: Auto, warehouse items and other BUSINESS TAX RECEIPTS (OCCUPATIONAL Magistrate and Federal Court Judges B14 properties for sale B8 LICENSES): Names, addresses, phone numbers Simply visit: CALENDARS: Suspensions in Miami-Dade, Broward, FICTITIOUS NAMES: Notices of intent and type of business of those who have received https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/public-notices/ and Palm Beach. Confirmation of judges’ daily motion to register business licenses B3 calendars in Miami-Dade B14 To search foreclosure sales by sale date visit: MARRIAGE LICENSES: Name, date of birth and city FAMILY MATTERS: Marriage dissolutions, adoptions, https://www.law.com/dailybusinessreview/foreclosures/ DIRECTORIES: Addresses, telephone numbers, and termination of parental rights B8 of those issued marriage licenses B3 names, and contact information for circuit and CREDIT INFORMATION: Liens filed against PROBATE NOTICES: Notices to Creditors, county
    [Show full text]
  • Launch of "Strata Title Property Rights– Private Governance of Multi
    Launch of “Strata Title Property Rights – Private governance of multi-owned properties” by Cathy Sherry University of New South Wales 2 August 2017 Mark Leeming1 Everyone is interested in architecture. Perhaps the best illustration of this is the runaway success of Kevin McCloud’s “Grand Designs” televison shows. Putting to one side the allure of McCloud himself, that success is in part a testament to the basic urge to build one’s own home, something which is never going to happen for the overwhelming majority of Australians. And even for those who merely end up owning their own home, increasingly that home will be a lot within a strata scheme or community title. There have been more than 1 million people living in Sydney in such schemes since 2011, and both the number and the proportion are only going to increase. Walking to this launch from the closest railway station this evening well illustrates the phenomenon. I passed a very rare single storey sandstone 19th century terrace a couple of minutes from Green Square, next to rows of late Victorian and early twentieth century two storey terraces. But then there were blocks of modern high density towers, before, after passing under Southern Cross Drive, one sees examples of the very worst of the 1960s and 70s three storey walk-ups, products of the legislation the subject of this book. One of the things which the photographs in this delightful book (yes, photographs in a law book!) convey is the changing architecture of flats and apartments, connected with legislative changes. There is, in the case of planning law and laws governing communal living, a very close link between the legislative regime and the lived-in character of the urban environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Mason's Minnesota Statutes 1927
    1940 Supplement To Mason's Minnesota Statutes 1927 (1927 to 1940) (Superseding Mason s 1931, 1934, 1936 and 1938 Supplements) Containing the text of the acts of the 1929, 1931, 1933, 1935, 1937 and 1939 General Sessions, and the 1933-34,1935-36, 1936 and 1937 Special Sessions of the Legislature, both new and amendatory, and notes showing repeals, together with annotations from the various courts, state and federal, and the opinions of the Attorney General, construing the constitution, statutes, charters and court rules of Minnesota together with digest of all common law decisions. Edited by William H. Mason Assisted by The Publisher's Editorial Staff MASON PUBLISHING CO. SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 1940 CH. 64—PLATS §8249 street on a street plat made by and adopted by the plat, or any officer, department, board or bureau of commission. The city council may, however, accept the municipality, may present to the district court a any street not shown on or not corresponding with a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision street on an approved subdivision plat or an approved is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds street plat, provided the ordinance accepting such of the Illegality. Such petition must be presented to street be first submitted to the planning commission the court within thirty days after the filing of the deci- for its approval and, if approved by the commission, sion in the office of the planning commission. be enacted or passed by not less than a majority of Upon the presentation of such petition, the court the entire membership of the council, or, if disapproved may allow a writ of certiorari directed to the planning by the commission, be enacted or passed by not less commission to review such decision of the planning than two-thirds of the entire membership of the city commission and shall prescribe therein the time within council.
    [Show full text]
  • THE Definitive PRIME RESIDENTIAL Briefing THE
    A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON PRIME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND WEALTH THE DEfINITIVE PRIME RESIDENTIAL BRIEfING new HIGH fOR CONTEMPORARY ART THE WORLD’S MOST INfLuENTIAL CITIES ASIA PACIfIC PRIME REAL ESTATE OuTLOOk fOCuS ON PROPERTY MARkET INVESTMENT WHERE THE WEALTHY ARE INVESTING KNIGHT FRANK TERMS AND DEFINITIONS HNWI is an acronym for 'high-net-worth individual’, a person whose investible assets, excluding their principal residence, total between $1m and $10m. An UHNWI (ultra-high-net-worth individual) is a person whose investible assets, excluding their primary residence, are valued at between $10m and $100m-plus. The term ‘prime property’ equates to the most desirable, and normally most expensive, property in a defined location. Commonly, but not exclusively, prime property markets are areas where demand has a significant international bias. Exchange rates: unless otherwise stated these were calculated using the rate on Feb 1 2010. The Wealth Report 2010 Attitudes Survey: the participants of the survey comprised clients of Citi Private Bank. Survey conducted between 1 December 2009 and 31 January 2010. CONTRIBUTORS Prime, prestige, luxury – all labels applied to the top end of the residential property Written and edited by Andrew Shirley and Liam Bailey, Knight Frank LLP. For research and press enquiries: Liam Bailey, Knight Frank LLP, market in different parts of the world. 55 Baker Street, London W1U 8AN +44 (0)20 7861 5133 ANDREW SHIRLEY Andrew, when not editing While the names may differ, the desire of High¯Net¯Worth Individuals to own The Wealth Report 2010, is head of and invest in the best property is ubiquitous around the globe.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Full Issue of the Real Estate Gazette As A
    ISSUE 34 Real Estate Gazette FOCUS ON: FOREIGN INVESTMENTS www.dlapiperrealworld.com Australia Australia’s foreign investment approval regime Poland Foreign real estate Brazil investment in Poland Foreign investment in Brazil (and in Brazilian farmlands) Portugal Portugal and foreign investors Germany Foreign real estate investments in Singapore Germany — unlimited opportunities? Private education in Southeast Asia — investment plays and regulatory hurdles Morocco Real estate foreign investments in Morocco United Kingdom Taxing non-UK resident Netherlands investors in UK property The 2019 Dutch tax plan — key takeaways for inbound real estate investments WWW.DLAPIPERREALWORLD.COM A note from the Editor A very warm welcome to all our readers to DLA Piper’s first Real Estate Gazette of the year. In this issue, we focus on foreign investment. Olaf Schmidt There are many rewards to be that its legal system contains some Co-Chair of the Global Cross- had from investing in real estate unique features, such as perpetual Practice Real Estate Sector overseas, including the opportunity usufruct, which any foreign investor to diversify and the potential for would need to consider (page 22), stable and safe returns, among while our UK article focuses on the others. However, in addition to tax implications for non-UK resident such advantages, prudent investors investors in UK property (page should also be aware of the pitfalls, 32). However, it is not all doom including unfamiliar tax regimes and and gloom. Many of the articles a completely alien legal framework stress the opportunities available governing the purchasing process. for foreign investors, citing, for example, the growth in city dwellers, In our Australian article (page increasing rent levels, and the 6), the authors describe the potential for significant, long-term country’s foreign investment returns.
    [Show full text]
  • Adverse Possession and the Transmissibility of Possessory Rights – the Dark Side of Land Registration? Mark Pawlowski* *Barris
    Adverse Possession and the Transmissibility of Possessory Rights – The Dark Side of Land Registration? Mark Pawlowski* *Barrister, Professor of Property Law, Scholl of Law, University of Greenwich James Brown** **Barrister, Senior Lecturer in Law, Aston University It is trite law that, if unregistered land is adversely possessed for a period of 12 years, the title of the paper owner is automatically barred under s.15 of the Limitation Act 1980. Where the land is registered, however, there is no automatic barring of title by adverse possession1 – instead, after being in adverse possession for a minimum of 10 years,2 the adverse possessor can apply to be registered as the proprietor in place of the registered proprietor of the land.3 Upon receipt of such an application, the Land Registry is obliged to notify various persons interested in the land, including the registered proprietor.4 Those persons then have 65 business days5 within which to object to the registration6 and, in the absence of any objection, the adverse possessor is entitled to be registered as the new proprietor of the land. 7 In these circumstances, the registered proprietor is assumed to have abandoned the land. If, on the other hand, there is an objection, the possessor will not be registered as the proprietor unless he falls within one of the three exceptional grounds listed in paragraph 5, Schedule 6 to the Land Registration Act 2002, where: (1) it would be unconscionable for the registered proprietor to object to the application; (2) the adverse possessor is otherwise entitled to the land; or (3) if the possessor is the owner of adjacent property and has been in adverse possession of the subject land under the mistaken, but reasonable belief, that he is its owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Finance (No. 3) Bill
    Finance (No. 3) Bill EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the Finance (No. 3) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights. Bill 282 57/1 Finance (No. 3) Bill CONTENTS PART 1 DIRECT TAXES Charge to tax 1 Income tax charge for tax year 2019-20 2 Corporation tax charge for financial year 2020 Income tax rates, allowances and limits 3 Main rates of income tax for tax year 2019-20 4 Default and savings rates of income tax for tax year 2019-20 5 Basic rate limit and personal allowance 6 Starting rate limit for savings for tax year 2019-20 Employment and social security income 7 Optional remuneration arrangements: arrangements for cars and vans 8 Exemption for benefit in form of vehicle-battery charging at workplace 9 Exemptions relating to emergency vehicles 10 Exemption for expenses related to travel 11 Beneficiaries of tax-exempt employer-provided pension benefits 12 Tax treatment of social security income Chargeable gains: interests in UK land etc 13 Disposals by non-UK residents etc 14 Disposals of UK land etc: payments on account of capital gains tax International matters 15 Offshore receipts in respect of intangible property 16 Avoidance involving profit fragmentation arrangements 17 Non-UK resident companies carrying on UK property businesses etc 18 Diverted profits tax 19 Hybrid and other mismatches: scope of Chapter 8 and “financial instrument” 20 Controlled foreign companies: finance company exemption and control Bill 282 57/1 ii Finance (No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Condominium Act
    REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4726 AN ACT TO DEFINE CONDOMINIM, ESTABLISH REQURIEMENTS FOR ITS CREATION, AND GOVERN ITS INCIDNETS SECTION 1. The short title of this Act shall be The Condominium Act. SECTION 2. A condominium is an interest in real property consisting of a separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial building and an undivided interest in common directly or indirectly, in the land which it is located and in other common areas of the building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Title to the common areas, including the land, or the appurtenant interests in such areas, may be held by a corporation specially formed for the purpose (hereinafter known as the condominium corporation) in which the holders of separate interests shall automatically be members or share−holders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest of their respective units in the common areas. The interests in condominium may be ownership or any other interest in real property recognized by the law of property in the Civil Code and other pertinent laws. SECTION 3. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: a. Condominium means a condominium as defined in the next preceding section. b. Unit means a part of the condominium project intended for any type of independent use or ownership, including one or more rooms or spaces located in one or more floors (or part or parts of floors) in a building or buildings and such accessories as may be appended thereto.
    [Show full text]
  • The Stamp Act and Methods of Protest
    Page 33 Chapter 8 The Stamp Act and Methods of Protest espite the many arguments made against it, the Stamp Act was passed and scheduled to be enforced on November 1, 1765. The colonists found ever more vigorous and violent ways to D protest the Act. In Virginia, a tall backwoods lawyer, Patrick Henry, made a fiery speech and pushed five resolutions through the Virginia Assembly. In Boston, an angry mob inspired by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty destroyed property belonging to a man rumored to be a Stamp agent and to Lt. Governor Thomas Hutchinson. In New York, delegates from nine colonies, sitting as the Stamp Act Congress, petitioned the King and Parliament for repeal. In Philadelphia, New York, and other seaport towns, merchants pledged not to buy or sell British goods until the hated stamp tax was repealed. This storm of resistance and protest eventually had the desired effect. Stamp sgents hastily resigned their Commissions and not a single stamp was ever sold in the colonies. Meanwhile, British merchants petitioned Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act. In 1766, the law was repealed but replaced with the Declaratory Act, which stated that Parliament had the right to make laws binding on the colonies "in all cases whatsoever." The methods used to protest the Stamp Act raised issues concerning the use of illegal and violent protest, which are considered in this chapter. May: Patrick Henry and the Virginia Resolutions Patrick Henry had been a member of Virginia's House of Burgess (Assembly) for exactly nine days as the May session was drawing to a close.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CUPRITE MINE PARTNERS LLC, an No. 13-16657 Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:12-cv-00286- v. DCB-LAB JOHN H. ANDERSON, a married man, acting in his sole and separate OPINION capacity; TODD CHRISTIAN ANDERSON, a married man, acting in his sole and separate capacity; MARGARET JANE ANDERSON LILJEMQUIST, a married woman, acting in her sole and separate capacity; PETER HAAKON ANDERSON, a single man; STACEY ELIZABETH ANDERSON ORD, a married woman, acting in her sole and separate capacity, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 17, 2015—San Francisco, California 2 CUPRITE MINE PARTNERS V. ANDERSON Filed December 31, 2015 Before: FERDINAND F. FERNANDEZ and MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judges, and BRIAN M. MORRIS,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. SUMMARY** Arizona Law / Mining Claims The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment, and held that the district court properly applied Arizona substantive law regarding partition of mining claims and federal procedural standards for summary judgment. Plaintiff is a limited liability company formed by children of Guy Anderson (or their successors-in-interest) who wished to sell their interests in Guy’s mining claims on a piece of property in Arizona’s Copper Mountain Mining District, and the defendants were Guy’s remaining child, and his children, who did not want to sell their interest in the mining claims. The district court entered judgment ordering partition by sale, and approved the sale of the property.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Deed Should I Use?
    FEATURE | TITLEREAL ESTATE LAW Which Deed Should I Use? BY EBEN P. CLARK 34 | COLORADO LAWYER | JANUARY 2019 Tis article discusses the four basic deed forms used in Colorado and when to use each form. hich deed should I use? Tis is c. Tat he warrants to the grantee and his the inevitable question in any heirs and assigns the quiet and peaceable transaction in which real prop- “ possession of such property and will erty is conveyed, regardless of The four basic defend the title thereto against all persons theW form of the transaction or the property to be who may lawfully claim the same. transferred. Every lawyer, realtor, or other real deed forms in While Upton and the Colorado Revised estate professional has faced this question at Statutes lay out with particularity the warranties some point in time. Colorado are included with a general warranty deed, for This article provides an overview of the general warranty, comparison purposes it is worth noting that at diferent types of deed forms available in Col- common law, the standard warranties of title orado. It describes the basic characteristics of special warranty, were referred to as six covenants: each type of deed, and its appropriateness for 1. the covenant of seisin (that the grantor various circumstances. Tis article does not bargain and sale, has the very estate it purports to convey); advocate for the use of a single form of deed for 2. the covenant of right to convey (that a certain transaction. Nor does it seek to provide and quitclaim. the grantor has the right to convey the a formula for determining the appropriate In this order, promised title); deed form in any specifc situation.
    [Show full text]