Power of Attorney is a legal document by which one person (known as the donor or principal) appoints another person (known as the attorney or donee) to act as an agent of the principal for purposes of performing certain acts on behalf of the principal who himself is legally capable of performing the said actions. The authority delegated vide a power of attorney may be general or specific in nature. A power of attorney is usually but not necessarily under seal. Although the donor of a power of attorney may by some positive act or acts, terminate or revoke the power at any time, a power of attorney is generally deemed terminated/revoked when either the principal or the attorney dies or otherwise becomes legally incapacitated. In real property transactions, powers of attorney are routinely granted to enable the donee to undertake a variety of transactions on behalf of the donor, but, it may not be used to directly confer, transfer, alienate, limit, or otherwise charge title in a real property. As simple and clear as these basic principles appear, so many controversies usually arise in their practical application to given circumstances, mainly because some of the principles, concepts, procedures and judicial pronouncements relating to use of powers of attorney, especially in real property transactions, are oftentimes either grossly misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misrepresented. This paper is an attempt at analyzing or clarifying some of these principles and pronouncements with a view to projecting them in line with established practice, extant law and rules, so as to minimize or eliminate these controversies and thereby promote clarity and a better understanding of these among practitioners, stakeholders and the general public. Vigorous efforts are made in the paper to provide workable answers to questions relating specifically to misuse or abuse of powers of attorney for transfer of title to land, revocability and irrevocability of powers of attorney, formalities of powers of attorney, whether a donee of a power of attorney is entitled, in exercise of the power under the instrument, to convey title in the property to himself, among many others issues.
{"title":"Providing Answers to Some Controversial Issues Relating to Use of Power of Attorney in Real Property Transactions in Nigeria (Part 1)","authors":"Sylvester Udemezue","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3847846","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3847846","url":null,"abstract":"Power of Attorney is a legal document by which one person (known as the donor or principal) appoints another person (known as the attorney or donee) to act as an agent of the principal for purposes of performing certain acts on behalf of the principal who himself is legally capable of performing the said actions. The authority delegated vide a power of attorney may be general or specific in nature. A power of attorney is usually but not necessarily under seal. Although the donor of a power of attorney may by some positive act or acts, terminate or revoke the power at any time, a power of attorney is generally deemed terminated/revoked when either the principal or the attorney dies or otherwise becomes legally incapacitated. In real property transactions, powers of attorney are routinely granted to enable the donee to undertake a variety of transactions on behalf of the donor, but, it may not be used to directly confer, transfer, alienate, limit, or otherwise charge title in a real property. As simple and clear as these basic principles appear, so many controversies usually arise in their practical application to given circumstances, mainly because some of the principles, concepts, procedures and judicial pronouncements relating to use of powers of attorney, especially in real property transactions, are oftentimes either grossly misunderstood, misinterpreted, or misrepresented. This paper is an attempt at analyzing or clarifying some of these principles and pronouncements with a view to projecting them in line with established practice, extant law and rules, so as to minimize or eliminate these controversies and thereby promote clarity and a better understanding of these among practitioners, stakeholders and the general public. Vigorous efforts are made in the paper to provide workable answers to questions relating specifically to misuse or abuse of powers of attorney for transfer of title to land, revocability and irrevocability of powers of attorney, formalities of powers of attorney, whether a donee of a power of attorney is entitled, in exercise of the power under the instrument, to convey title in the property to himself, among many others issues.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122905463","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The business of privatized mortgage loan securitization (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits or “REMICS”) is so arcane and specialized that few people outside of that realm of investment knowledge understand, or even care to understand how loan securitization functions. However, if the difference between a legitimate REMIC and a Rogue REMIC is adequately explained, one can begin to understand why Rogue REMICs must be exposed as unlawful enterprises whose affiliates are not only able to disregard existing federal securities and tax laws, but are also able to circumvent state and local foreclosure laws at will. These ongoing violations result from the intentional and commonplace shortcutting of the proper mortgage loan securitization processes during the several years preceding the 2008 financial crisis. This Inquiry will not focus primarily on how and why Rogue REMICS violate federal tax and securities laws; although those aspects are part of the discussion by necessity. I will argue that all Rogues lack the perquisite legal standing to prosecute both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures. I will present compelling evidence that, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, foreclosures by Rogues may have exceeded 10% of all foreclosures. I will further argue that county officials may be violating state laws by recording the documents that impart false legal standing to the Rogues. I will conclude with a suggestion to homeowners on how to proceed if a mortgage assignment to a Rogue turns up in the local County public records.
{"title":"An Inquiry into the Legal Standing of Rogue REMICS in Foreclosures","authors":"James P Campbell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2810583","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2810583","url":null,"abstract":"The business of privatized mortgage loan securitization (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits or “REMICS”) is so arcane and specialized that few people outside of that realm of investment knowledge understand, or even care to understand how loan securitization functions. However, if the difference between a legitimate REMIC and a Rogue REMIC is adequately explained, one can begin to understand why Rogue REMICs must be exposed as unlawful enterprises whose affiliates are not only able to disregard existing federal securities and tax laws, but are also able to circumvent state and local foreclosure laws at will. These ongoing violations result from the intentional and commonplace shortcutting of the proper mortgage loan securitization processes during the several years preceding the 2008 financial crisis. This Inquiry will not focus primarily on how and why Rogue REMICS violate federal tax and securities laws; although those aspects are part of the discussion by necessity. I will argue that all Rogues lack the perquisite legal standing to prosecute both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures. I will present compelling evidence that, in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, foreclosures by Rogues may have exceeded 10% of all foreclosures. I will further argue that county officials may be violating state laws by recording the documents that impart false legal standing to the Rogues. I will conclude with a suggestion to homeowners on how to proceed if a mortgage assignment to a Rogue turns up in the local County public records.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130562844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-04-19DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3596.3768
Marc Hansen, M. Conteh, M. Shakya, Wilhelm Loewenstein
The land grabbing issue has produced a plethora of debates ranging from ethical conduct of land grabbing agents, specifically concerning displacement, to evidence for and against positive externalities such as technological spill-overs and construction of infrastructure. An underexplored topic is the valuation of agricultural land and the compensatory payments made to land users, distinct from land owners, for the loss of their source of food security. This paper establishes a theoretical framework for the valuation of agricultural land from the perspective of land users, based on a household production function. For the analysis data were collected in a survey of 203 households in the land grab affected area in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone during 2013. It shows that, for the case of a specific land grab in Sierra Leone, the compensatory payments received by land users are far below the value of the land lost and as such the lease income is unable to allow these households to maintain their previously, already tenuous, levels of food security. A clear distinction is made between land owners and even more vulnerable non-landowning land users who depend on the agricultural land for their food security and livelihoods. The household level analysis showed that in addition to the level of compensation received by the average household being insufficient to maintain a priori welfare levels the distribution of compensation significantly favoured the wealthier households. Since the value of the land and the rent distribution were set in local positive law the project could correctly call itself fully compliant but the land grab still resulted in significant welfare losses. The methodology implemented by this ex-post study can identically be applied to an ex-ante scenario allowing land grabbing agents to define a minimum compensatory payment to land users not based on asymmetrical bargaining power but on actual land value to this vulnerable section of the local population.
{"title":"Determining Minimum Compensation for Lost Farmland: A Theory-Based Impact Evaluation of a Land Grab in Sierra Leone","authors":"Marc Hansen, M. Conteh, M. Shakya, Wilhelm Loewenstein","doi":"10.13140/RG.2.1.3596.3768","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3596.3768","url":null,"abstract":"The land grabbing issue has produced a plethora of debates ranging from ethical conduct of land grabbing agents, specifically concerning displacement, to evidence for and against positive externalities such as technological spill-overs and construction of infrastructure. An underexplored topic is the valuation of agricultural land and the compensatory payments made to land users, distinct from land owners, for the loss of their source of food security. This paper establishes a theoretical framework for the valuation of agricultural land from the perspective of land users, based on a household production function. For the analysis data were collected in a survey of 203 households in the land grab affected area in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone during 2013. It shows that, for the case of a specific land grab in Sierra Leone, the compensatory payments received by land users are far below the value of the land lost and as such the lease income is unable to allow these households to maintain their previously, already tenuous, levels of food security. A clear distinction is made between land owners and even more vulnerable non-landowning land users who depend on the agricultural land for their food security and livelihoods. The household level analysis showed that in addition to the level of compensation received by the average household being insufficient to maintain a priori welfare levels the distribution of compensation significantly favoured the wealthier households. Since the value of the land and the rent distribution were set in local positive law the project could correctly call itself fully compliant but the land grab still resulted in significant welfare losses. The methodology implemented by this ex-post study can identically be applied to an ex-ante scenario allowing land grabbing agents to define a minimum compensatory payment to land users not based on asymmetrical bargaining power but on actual land value to this vulnerable section of the local population.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121888900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-04-30DOI: 10.5937/ANALIPFB1503112Z
Miloš Živković
This paper examines the systems of contractual acquisition of ownership of real property in various civil law jurisdictions. It then presents Serbian legislative solutions in that respect, commonly denoted as titulus-modus system. It particularly emphasizes recent departures from the traditional system in respect of acquisition of ownership of real property in the current practice of Serbian courts and in recent legislation. These developments seem to indicate a certain shift towards a system of conveyance effect of the contract itself, resembling in some aspects the French law. This development is subjected to critical analysis, the conclusion of which is that there needs to be a consistent application of a chosen system, once it is chosen. Finally, the author proposes a solution that would achieve such goal and increase the level of legal certainty.
{"title":"Acquisition of Ownership of Real Property by Contract in Serbian Law – Departing from the Titulus-Modus System?","authors":"Miloš Živković","doi":"10.5937/ANALIPFB1503112Z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5937/ANALIPFB1503112Z","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the systems of contractual acquisition of ownership of real property in various civil law jurisdictions. It then presents Serbian legislative solutions in that respect, commonly denoted as titulus-modus system. It particularly emphasizes recent departures from the traditional system in respect of acquisition of ownership of real property in the current practice of Serbian courts and in recent legislation. These developments seem to indicate a certain shift towards a system of conveyance effect of the contract itself, resembling in some aspects the French law. This development is subjected to critical analysis, the conclusion of which is that there needs to be a consistent application of a chosen system, once it is chosen. Finally, the author proposes a solution that would achieve such goal and increase the level of legal certainty.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132931837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Section 25 of the Constitution provides two ways in which the state may interfere with property rights, namely deprivation (section 25(1)) and expropriation (section 25(2)). As only the latter requires compensation, there is an incentive for property holders to label any infringement with their property as expropriation in the hope of being compensated for their losses. It is therefore essential to have a principled distinction between deprivation and expropriation, especially given the danger that uncertainty in this regard can hold for legitimate land reform initiatives, which often entail severe limitations on property. This contribution attends to Agri South Africa v Minister for Minerals and Energy 2013 4 SA 1 (CC), where the Constitutional Court recently revisited this distinction and held that the distinguishing feature of expropriation is that it entails state acquisition of property. Without state acquisition the interference can (at most) amount to deprivation. Unfortunately, viewing state acquisition as the "key requirement" for expropriation is problematic. Firstly, it ignores the true nature of this feature in that it is only a consequence of a valid expropriation rather than a pre-requisite for it – at least in terms of pre-constitutional law. It is therefore inaccurate, concerning both pre- and post-constitutional expropriation case law, to regard acquisition as an indispensable requirement for expropriation. Secondly, limiting the constitutional property inquiry to whether or not the state acquired property appears inadequate as a means of solving difficult cases where the state acquires property pursuant to infringements like taxation and criminal forfeiture. As both these examples result in state acquisition, there must be another explanation of why they do not amount to expropriation. KEYWORDS : expropriation; deprivation; section 25; property clause; state acquisition; constitutional property law; Agri SA case.
《宪法》第25条规定了国家干预财产权的两种方式，即剥夺(第25(1)条)和征收(第25(2)条)。由于只有后者需要赔偿，因此财产所有者有动机将其财产的任何侵权行为标记为征用，以期赔偿其损失。因此，必须在原则上区分剥夺和征用，特别是考虑到这方面的不确定性可能对合法的土地改革倡议造成危险，因为这些倡议往往对财产造成严重限制。这一贡献涉及南非农业诉矿产和能源部长2013年4 SA 1 (CC)，其中宪法法院最近重新审视了这一区别，并认为征用的显著特征是它需要国家收购财产。没有国家收购，这种干预(最多)就等于剥夺。不幸的是，将国家收购视为征收的“关键条件”是有问题的。首先，它忽略了这一特征的真正性质，因为它只是有效征用的结果，而不是征用的先决条件- -至少就宪法之前的法律而言是这样。因此，就宪法制定前和宪法制定后的征收判例法而言，将征收视为征收不可或缺的条件是不准确的。其次，将宪法财产调查限制在国家是否获得财产上，似乎不足以作为解决国家根据税收和刑事没收等侵权行为获得财产的疑难案件的手段。既然这两个例子都导致了国家收购，那么就必须有另一种解释来解释为什么它们不等于征用。关键词:征收;剥夺;25节;财产条款;国家收购;宪法物权法;农业股份有限公司案例。
{"title":"When Does State Interference with Property (Now) Amount to Expropriation? An Analysis of the Agri Sa Court's State Acquisition Requirement (Part I)","authors":"E. Marais","doi":"10.4314/PELJ.V18I1.03","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4314/PELJ.V18I1.03","url":null,"abstract":"Section 25 of the Constitution provides two ways in which the state may interfere with property rights, namely deprivation (section 25(1)) and expropriation (section 25(2)). As only the latter requires compensation, there is an incentive for property holders to label any infringement with their property as expropriation in the hope of being compensated for their losses. It is therefore essential to have a principled distinction between deprivation and expropriation, especially given the danger that uncertainty in this regard can hold for legitimate land reform initiatives, which often entail severe limitations on property. This contribution attends to Agri South Africa v Minister for Minerals and Energy 2013 4 SA 1 (CC), where the Constitutional Court recently revisited this distinction and held that the distinguishing feature of expropriation is that it entails state acquisition of property. Without state acquisition the interference can (at most) amount to deprivation. Unfortunately, viewing state acquisition as the \"key requirement\" for expropriation is problematic. Firstly, it ignores the true nature of this feature in that it is only a consequence of a valid expropriation rather than a pre-requisite for it – at least in terms of pre-constitutional law. It is therefore inaccurate, concerning both pre- and post-constitutional expropriation case law, to regard acquisition as an indispensable requirement for expropriation. Secondly, limiting the constitutional property inquiry to whether or not the state acquired property appears inadequate as a means of solving difficult cases where the state acquires property pursuant to infringements like taxation and criminal forfeiture. As both these examples result in state acquisition, there must be another explanation of why they do not amount to expropriation. KEYWORDS : expropriation; deprivation; section 25; property clause; state acquisition; constitutional property law; Agri SA case.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121149041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article reviews the Land Registration Act 2002, taking advantage of the deeper perspective afforded by the intervening decade, and absorbing subsequent developments – and, in the case of the Act's electronic conveyancing project, non‐developments – that have also come to contribute to the picture. It suggests especially that while the Act's central idea of conclusive, indeed ‘constitutive’, registration can be beneficial, its deployment here has been problematic. In particular, the lapse of electronic conveyancing, and the possibility (resisted by the courts) that conclusive registration can be procured by fraudsters, have diminished the control that parties have over dispositions of their own title, to the detriment of their autonomy; and over‐preoccupation with the central idea has resulted in a failure to think carefully enough about problems to which it was never going to be the answer.
{"title":"The Land Registration Act 2002 – The Show on the Road","authors":"S. Gardner","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12089","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the Land Registration Act 2002, taking advantage of the deeper perspective afforded by the intervening decade, and absorbing subsequent developments – and, in the case of the Act's electronic conveyancing project, non‐developments – that have also come to contribute to the picture. It suggests especially that while the Act's central idea of conclusive, indeed ‘constitutive’, registration can be beneficial, its deployment here has been problematic. In particular, the lapse of electronic conveyancing, and the possibility (resisted by the courts) that conclusive registration can be procured by fraudsters, have diminished the control that parties have over dispositions of their own title, to the detriment of their autonomy; and over‐preoccupation with the central idea has resulted in a failure to think carefully enough about problems to which it was never going to be the answer.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130579197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
E. Ivankina, Evgeny Isakovich Bogomolny, E. Kosareva, Vitaly M. Lischenko
Russian Abstract: Постоянно совершенствующаяся законодательная база и разграничение государственной собственности на землю закладывают основы для перехода собственности на земельные участки и объекты недвижимости в ходе рыночных операций. Системы государственного кадастра недвижимости, регистрации прав на недвижимость и кадастровой и рыночной оценки земель упорядочивают ценообразование на рынке недвижимости и способствуют формированию базы для налогообложения. Территориальное зонирование и система налогообложения предоставляют органам государственной власти инструменты для экономического регулирования рынков недвижимости.Детальный анализ рынков недвижимости стран Европы и США позволяет оценить влияние конкретных механизмов экономического регулирования, действующего на этих рынках. В работе проанализирована возможность применения налога на сверхприбыль строительной компании, налога на инвестора, налога на спекулятивные перепродажи и некоторых других в нашей стране.English Abstract: Continuously improved legal framework and demarcation of state land lay the foundation for the transition of ownership of land and real estate market during the operations. System state real estate cadastre and registration of rights to real estate and cadastral valuation of land and market pricing streamline the real estate market and promote the formation of a base for taxation. Territorial zoning and tax system provide public authorities tools for economic regulation of real estate markets.Detailed analysis of real estate markets in Europe and the U.S. to evaluate the effects of specific economic regulation mechanisms operating in these markets. In this paper we analyzed the possibility of excess profits tax construction company, investor tax, tax on speculative resale and some others in our country.
俄罗斯的Abstract:不断完善的立法框架和国家土地所有权的划分为市场交易中土地所有权和房地产所有权的转移奠定了基础。国家房地产登记处、房地产登记和土地所有权和市场评估系统正在调整房地产市场的价格，并有助于建立税收基础。领土分区和税收制度为国家当局提供了经济管理房地产市场的工具。对欧洲和美国房地产市场的详细分析有助于评估这些市场中具体经济监管机制的影响。它分析了对建筑公司超额利润征税、投资者税、投机转售税和我国其他一些国家征收的可能性。英语Abstract:大陆联盟开发和土地开发基金会为土地和实际房地产市场的转移。System state real estate cadastre and registration of rights to real estate and cadastral valuation of land and market pricing streamline the real estate market and promote the组of a base for taxation)。territal zoning和tax系统预览工具为真正的房地产房地产管理。在欧洲有一个实际的市场分析，在那里有一个专门的经济政策。在这张纸上，我们对excess教授tax进行了分析，入侵者tax，在我们国家的特殊反应和其他一些人。
{"title":"Адаптация Международного Опыта Регулирования Рынка Недвижимости в Условиях Современной России (Adaptation of the International Experience in Regulating the Real Estate Market in Modern Russia)","authors":"E. Ivankina, Evgeny Isakovich Bogomolny, E. Kosareva, Vitaly M. Lischenko","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2443933","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2443933","url":null,"abstract":"Russian Abstract: Постоянно совершенствующаяся законодательная база и разграничение государственной собственности на землю закладывают основы для перехода собственности на земельные участки и объекты недвижимости в ходе рыночных операций. Системы государственного кадастра недвижимости, регистрации прав на недвижимость и кадастровой и рыночной оценки земель упорядочивают ценообразование на рынке недвижимости и способствуют формированию базы для налогообложения. Территориальное зонирование и система налогообложения предоставляют органам государственной власти инструменты для экономического регулирования рынков недвижимости.Детальный анализ рынков недвижимости стран Европы и США позволяет оценить влияние конкретных механизмов экономического регулирования, действующего на этих рынках. В работе проанализирована возможность применения налога на сверхприбыль строительной компании, налога на инвестора, налога на спекулятивные перепродажи и некоторых других в нашей стране.English Abstract: Continuously improved legal framework and demarcation of state land lay the foundation for the transition of ownership of land and real estate market during the operations. System state real estate cadastre and registration of rights to real estate and cadastral valuation of land and market pricing streamline the real estate market and promote the formation of a base for taxation. Territorial zoning and tax system provide public authorities tools for economic regulation of real estate markets.Detailed analysis of real estate markets in Europe and the U.S. to evaluate the effects of specific economic regulation mechanisms operating in these markets. In this paper we analyzed the possibility of excess profits tax construction company, investor tax, tax on speculative resale and some others in our country.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129904943","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
В статье рассматриваются проблемы, связанные с государственной регистрацией "классического" (или "трехстороннего") лизинга (с участием лизингодателя, пользователя и продавца) недвижимого имущества. По мнению автора, проблемы порождаются неверным представлением юридической природы лизинга, получившим законодательное закрепление. Указанных проблем не возникает, если исходить из предлагаемой автором композитарной трактовки "классического" лизинга, согласно которой он представляет собой комбинацию договора купли-продажи между продавцом и EC и договора аренды между LC и лизингополучателем, где: EC (emptor compositus) - покупатель, состоящий из лизингодателя и лизингополучателя, между которыми определенным образом распределяются права и обязанности покупателя; LC (locator compositus) - арендодатель, состоящий из продавца и лизингодателя, между которыми определенным образом распределяются права и обязанности арендодателя.The author discusses issues connected with the state registration of the "classical" (or "tripartite") leasing (involving the finance lessor, the user, and the seller) of immovable property. In the author’s opinion, the problems arise from the misconception of legal nature of leasing, which has found legislative recognition. The said problems do not arise if one proceeds from the proposed by the author compositary interpretation of the "classical" leasing, in accordance therewith the latter is a combination of a sales contract between the seller and the EC and a lease contract between the LC and the user, where: EC (emptor compositus) – is the buyer made up of the finance lessor and the user, between which, in a certain way, the rights and duties of the buyer are distributed; and LC (locator compositus) – is the lessor made up of the seller and the finance lessor, between which, in a certain way, the rights and duties of the lessor are distributed.
本文讨论了政府登记“经典”(或“三方”)不动产的问题(包括租赁人、用户和卖家)。提交人认为，问题源于租赁法律性质的误解，而租赁的法律性质得到了立法规定。指出没有出现问题,如果来自作者提供租赁композитарн诠释“经典”,即他组合构成卖方之间的销售合同和租约EC和LC和лизингополучател之间:EC (emptor compositus)组成的买家лизингодателлизингополучател,买家以特定方式的分配之间的权利和义务;LC (locator compositus)是由卖方和租赁人组成的租赁人，租赁人的权利和义务在一定程度上分配。与“经典”(或“tripartite”)有关的是“经典”、“用户”和“冒名顶替者”。在审判员的公开赛中，从遗产自然的不确定性中出现了问题。The said问题do not的if one proceeds from The proposed by The的compositary interpretation of The“古典”leasing in accordance therewith The second is a俱乐部of a sales契约between The位and The EC and a租赁契约between The LC and The用户,where: EC (emptor compositus) is The buyer made up of finance lessor and The用户,between主演《in a way The rights and duties of The buyer are分布式;而LC (locator compositus)是一种选择和金融的模式，是一种手段，是一种手段，是一种手段。
{"title":"Лизинг Недвижимости и Проблемы Регистрации (Новый Взгляд) (Leasing of Immovable Property and Registration Issues (New Approach))","authors":"Stanislav Shatalov","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2365694","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2365694","url":null,"abstract":"В статье рассматриваются проблемы, связанные с государственной регистрацией \"классического\" (или \"трехстороннего\") лизинга (с участием лизингодателя, пользователя и продавца) недвижимого имущества. По мнению автора, проблемы порождаются неверным представлением юридической природы лизинга, получившим законодательное закрепление. Указанных проблем не возникает, если исходить из предлагаемой автором композитарной трактовки \"классического\" лизинга, согласно которой он представляет собой комбинацию договора купли-продажи между продавцом и EC и договора аренды между LC и лизингополучателем, где: EC (emptor compositus) - покупатель, состоящий из лизингодателя и лизингополучателя, между которыми определенным образом распределяются права и обязанности покупателя; LC (locator compositus) - арендодатель, состоящий из продавца и лизингодателя, между которыми определенным образом распределяются права и обязанности арендодателя.The author discusses issues connected with the state registration of the \"classical\" (or \"tripartite\") leasing (involving the finance lessor, the user, and the seller) of immovable property. In the author’s opinion, the problems arise from the misconception of legal nature of leasing, which has found legislative recognition. The said problems do not arise if one proceeds from the proposed by the author compositary interpretation of the \"classical\" leasing, in accordance therewith the latter is a combination of a sales contract between the seller and the EC and a lease contract between the LC and the user, where: EC (emptor compositus) – is the buyer made up of the finance lessor and the user, between which, in a certain way, the rights and duties of the buyer are distributed; and LC (locator compositus) – is the lessor made up of the seller and the finance lessor, between which, in a certain way, the rights and duties of the lessor are distributed.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130081355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explains and compares the rules that apply to real estate investment trusts in the Netherlands and the United States. The comparison provides a framework for analyzing whose rules are more effective in achieving the policies that led to the enactment of the REIT regimes in those countries.
{"title":"What Do We Have in Common? What Can We Learn from Each Other? A Comparative Study of US and Dutch REITs","authors":"W. Taylor, H. Vermeulen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2359174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2359174","url":null,"abstract":"This article explains and compares the rules that apply to real estate investment trusts in the Netherlands and the United States. The comparison provides a framework for analyzing whose rules are more effective in achieving the policies that led to the enactment of the REIT regimes in those countries.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129356973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I provide a recap of some of the damage major coastal storms have caused in the state, a basic primer on doctrines of law that are relevant to coastal landowners, and an explanation of the impact of beach replenishment projects on these homeowners. I will then turn to the recent Karan decision and explain why the court was correct in their holding. I explain the impact the ruling will have on the future of both replenishment projects for the state’s beaches and property rights of beachfront landowners. Finally, I discuss possible challenges to the Court’s decision.
{"title":"Dunes, Devaluation and Developing Law: An Analysis of Coastal Property Rights and Eminent Domain in New Jersey in the Wake of Super Storm Sandy and the Recent New Jersey Supreme Court Decision in Harvey Cedars v. Karan","authors":"P. M. Harrington","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2362543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2362543","url":null,"abstract":"I provide a recap of some of the damage major coastal storms have caused in the state, a basic primer on doctrines of law that are relevant to coastal landowners, and an explanation of the impact of beach replenishment projects on these homeowners. I will then turn to the recent Karan decision and explain why the court was correct in their holding. I explain the impact the ruling will have on the future of both replenishment projects for the state’s beaches and property rights of beachfront landowners. Finally, I discuss possible challenges to the Court’s decision.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123355007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：