confused capacities & agreements

[parzival]

seems no one wants to read, so maybe a USA law course video course will help.

lets work through this in smaller pieces,
what is a life tenant?

Josh blackman records his law classes....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA3mpbs ... doImn3Ygrb

I find it entertaining the complaints about how i write, yet do not care to read what YOUR OWN scholars write, like the forgotten statutes posted above,

so what does trust and trustee mean, if not a trust? does the Settled Land Act convey a trust?

what is common law vs equity, all these things are posted above yet ignored and then complain about how i write,

it is interesting how the managers of the website have moved this to a bullshit area, so we will continue, since ignorace is bliss for the quatloosers that cant read

no one in equity is a life tenant, and not bound to the common law, you all are trying to convey a fraud and to stupid to se it yet is written in excess.......

[NYGman]

I want to read, I will not watch a video. Why can't you just state your point. I know what a Life Tennant is and it irrelevant to most everyone, so again, please state clearly what you legal theory is.

[Pottapaug1938]

Don't hold your breath, Bucko. We are not bothering to address what you post because, to steal a phrase from a court case which makes frequent appearances on Quatloos, to try to do so might imply that your word salad has some colorable merit, when in fact it has none. After repeated requests, you have failed to state your reasons for showering us with quote after quote from often centuries-old laws of dubious applicability, especially when they are English laws and you are addressing people who mostly live in the United States. You also fail a fundamental test when you extract terms from real property and trust law and try to apply them to people in general, which is flat-out wrong as a matter of law.

So -- state your point, in clear and concise terms (if you can); and then show us APPLICABLE constitutional provisions, statutes, case law to reinforce why you claim that your proposition is correct. Until then, you are wasting our time; and I am probably not the only one who is losing his patience with you.

[parzival]

I want to read, I will not watch a video. Why can't you just state your point. I know what a Life Tennant is and it irrelevant to most everyone, so again, please state clearly what you legal theory is.

obviously dont understand what life tenant is, and do not understand what common law is (land settlement), and how the settled estates is equity,

The Act of 1882 differs from all previous legislation in regard to settled land. It proceeds on different lines, and it has a different object in view. The Settled Estates Acts did not confer or enable the Court to confer on a limited owner powers beyond those ordinarily inserted in a well-drawn settlement. They were no doubt very useful Acts in their way. An application to the Court at a moderate cost was made to serve the purposes of a private estate Act. But the Settled Land Act was founded upon a broader policy and has a larger scope. A period of agricultural depression, which shewed no sign of abatement, had given rise to a popular outcry against settlements. The problem was how to relieve settled land from the mischief which strict settlements undoubtedly did in some cases produce, without doing away altogether with the power of bringing land into settlement. That was something very different from the task to which Parliament addressed itself in framing the Settled Estates Acts. In those Acts the Legislature did not look beyond the interests of the persons entitled under the settlement. In the Settled Land Act the paramount object of the Legislature was the well-being of settled land. The interests of the persons entitled under the settlement are protected by the Act as far as it was possible to protect them. They must be duly considered by the trustees or by the Court whenever the trustees or the Court may be called upon to act. But it is evident I think that the Legislature did not intend that the main purpose of the Act should be frustrated by too nice a regard for those interests.

as you can see settled Estates is not the same SUBJECT MATTER as settled Lands act,

I would contend first that the 1856 Act is part of Manitoba law by reason of the fundamental rules governing the reception of English statutes in the settled colonies. Those rules as laid out by Blackstone, were explained and applied by the Manitoba Court of Appeal itself in Meanwell v Meanwell in 1941,34 but the fullest and clearest analysis of the doctrine of reception, both as to statute and judge-made law is surely that of Mr. Jean Côté, as he then was, in his justly-famous articles in the Alberta Law Review, in 1964 and 1977 respectively

as we can see CANLII says how common law is implied by reception, what is reception? what is prescriptions?

so what does trust, and trustee mean, and what WHO is a life tenant?

But redundant it undoubtedly is. Until 1983 when, as explained below, all life tenants were made willy-nilly the beneficiaries (and usually also the trustees) of a legislatively imposed trust,49 the 1856 Act might be of use when a life tenant under a common law settlement felt the need to make a sale or lease of the fee simple.[/color] That would not be often, since express settlements are not commonly created these days, and when they do occur, are usually effected under a trust; which brings into play the extensive facilities for Court-approved dispositions of all kinds, afforded in Manitoba by the Trustee Act, s 58(1).50

what is a trust by operation of law?

Trustee act
A Modern Trustee Act for British Columbia
A Report prepared for the British Columbia Law Institute by its Committee on the Modernizati ... eeAct.pdf
6. Trusts arising by operation of law
Trusts arising by operation of law, or that are declared by a court to exist (constructive
trusts), are chiefly remedial in nature. They generally do not require the full administrative
machinery of an express trust in order to fulfil their function. For example, it would not be
desirable to equip a resulting or constructive trustee with powers to delegate authority to an
agent or invest the trust property when the function of the trust is to confirm that the property
is not the trustee’s own and to expedite its transfer to the rightful owner. Therefore, the
Committee believes a new Trustee Act should not apply generally to resulting trusts, nor to
constructive or similar trusts arising by operation of law or through a judgment or order of
a court.31

once again the issues is the ignorance of the WHOLE system, and trying to play only 1 part.

[NYGman]

FFS a life tenant is the party that enjoys the rights of a life estate, nothing more. So when you post rambling multi colored posts quoting English law, it really isn't relevant. while common law may draw from British common lae we now have our own laws, statutes and case law, that makes most of it irrelevant.

I have already attended law school, passed the bar, and have studied law since. I have a JD and am admitted to the 2nd department in NY. asking me to watch a property law school class is like me asking you to watch Sesame Street.

Quit the quoting, and tell us what you are trying to prove, before you try to incorrectly explain what you think is the law.

[parzival]

LAND TITLE ACT
Effect of indefeasible title
23 (1) In this section, "court" includes a person or statutory body having, by law or consent of parties, authority to hear, receive and examine evidence.

(2) An indefeasible title, as long as it remains in force and uncancelled, is conclusive evidence at law and in equity, as against the Crown and all other persons, that the person named in the title as registered owner is indefeasibly entitled to an estate in fee simple to the land described in the indefeasible title, subject to the following:

(a) the subsisting conditions, provisos, restrictions, exceptions and reservations, including royalties, contained in the original grant or contained in any other grant or disposition from the Crown;

(b) a federal or Provincial tax, rate or assessment at the date of the application for registration imposed or made a lien or that may after that date be imposed or made a lien on the land;

(c) a municipal charge, rate or assessment at the date of the application for registration imposed or that may after that date be imposed on the land, or which had before that date been imposed for local improvements or otherwise and that was not then due and payable, including a charge, rate or assessment imposed by a public body having taxing powers over an area in which the land is located;

Completion of registration
36 (1) The registrar, after registration of title in fee simple or a charge or a cancellation of a charge, must, unless the director otherwise orders, make on an instrument deposited in support of the application for registration or cancellation or, if no instrument is deposited, on the application, an endorsement in the form approved by the director, which must be received in all courts as conclusive evidence of the registration of the instrument or application.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/ ... B&offset=0

19 Who is tenant for life.
(1)The person of full age who is for the time being beneficially entitled under a settlement to possession of settled land for his life is for the purposes of this Act the tenant for life of that land and the tenant for life under that settlement.
(2)If in any case there are two or more persons of full age so entitled as joint tenants, they together constitute the tenant for life for the purposes of this Act.
(3)If in any case there are two or more persons so entitled as joint tenants and they are not all of full age, such one or more of them as is or are for the time being of full age is or (if more than one) together constitute the tenant for life for the purposes of this Act, but this subsection does not affect the beneficial interests of such of them as are not for the time being of full age.
(4)A person being tenant for life within the foregoing definitions shall be deemed to be such notwithstanding that, under the settlement or otherwise, the settled land, or his estate or interest therein, is incumbered or charged in any manner or to any extent, and notwithstanding any assignment by operation of law or otherwise of his estate or interest under the settlement, whether before or after it came into possession, other than an assurance which extinguishes that estate or interest.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... ection/19 30 Who are trustees for purposes of Act.
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, the following persons are trustees of a settlement for the purposes of this Act, and are in this Act referred to as the “trustees of the settlement” or “trustees of a settlement,” namely—
(i)the persons, if any, who are for the time being under the settlement, trustees with power of sale of the settled land (subject or not to the consent of any person), or with power of consent to or approval of the exercise of such a power of sale, or if there are no such persons; then
(ii)the persons, if any, for the time being, who are by the settlement declared to be trustees thereof for the purposes of the Settled Land Acts, 1882 to 1890, or any of them, or this Act, or if there are no such persons; then
(iii)the persons, if any, who are for the time being under the settlement trustees with [F1a power or duty to sell] of any other land comprised in the settlement and subject to the same limitations as the land to be sold or otherwise dealt with, or with power of consent to or approval of the exercise of such power of sale, or, if there are no such persons; then
(iv)the persons, if any, who are for the time being under the settlement trustees with [F2a future power or duty to sell] the settled land, or with power of consent to or approval of the exercise of such a future power of sale, and whether the power [F3or duty] takes effect in all events or not, or, if there are no such persons; then
(v)the persons, if any, appointed by deed to be trustees of the settlement by all the persons who at the date of the deed were together able, by virtue of their beneficial interests or by the exercise of an equitable power, to dispose of the settled land in equity for the whole estate the subject of the settlement.
(2)Paragraphs (i) (iii) and (iv) of the last preceding subsection take effect in like manner as if the powers therein referred to had not by this Act been made exercisable by the tenant for life or statutory owner.
(3)Where a settlement is created by will, or a settlement has arisen by the effect of an intestacy, and apart from this subsection there would be no trustees for the purposes of this Act of such settlement, then the personal representatives of the deceased shall, until other trustees are appointed, be by virtue of this Act the trustees of the settlement, but where there is a sole personal representative, not being a trust corporation, it shall be obligatory on him to appoint an additional trustee to act with him for the purposes of this Act, and the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1925, relating to the appointment of new trustees and the vesting of trust property shall apply accordingly.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo ... section/30

hmmmm,,,,, so what is a trust, and what is trustee, and who are life tenant IN FREE SIMPLE... under law of property, that was reformed into settled estates act and is now trust and settlement variations act.

so please explain how one can remove the grant from the monarchy, if this is required for the juristic units as government to have that power....

funny how you can not see it is quatloos and its members that are very very wrong and why you will not rad the case law, or blackstone or any jurisprudence presented, your the trustee and beneficiary, and when the settlor comes you loose all, so ofcourse you are going to be ignorant etc...

AND WHY YOU ARE FOREVER ESTOPPED..



secret feoffments its a bitch, and as life tenants and require to be life tenant to be part of govt, your doing it to yourselves by having your head in the sand....

[parzival]

FFS a life tenant is the party that enjoys the rights of a life estate, nothing more. So when you post rambling multi colored posts quoting English law, it really isn't relevant. while common law may draw from British common lae we now have our own laws, statutes and case law, that makes most of it irrelevant.

I have already attended law school, passed the bar, and have studied law since. I have a JD and am admitted to the 2nd department in NY. asking me to watch a property law school class is like me asking you to watch Sesame Street.

Quit the quoting, and tell us what you are trying to prove, before you try to incorrectly explain what you think is the law.

better go back to school then, since you forgot the first year law class, from nature to common LOL

so this professor at law is wrong?
Unsettled Estates: Manitoba's Forgotten Statute and the Chupryk Case
https://commentary.canlii.org/w/canlii/ ... cs240.pdf

I would contend first that the 1856 Act is part of Manitoba law by reason of the fundamental rules governing the reception of English statutes in the settled colonies. Those rules as laid out by Blackstone, were explained and applied by the Manitoba Court of Appeal itself in Meanwell v Meanwell in 1941,34 but the fullest and clearest analysis of the doctrine of reception, both as to statute and judge-made law is surely that of Mr. Jean Côté, as he then was, in his justly-famous articles in the Alberta Law Review, in 1964 and 1977 respectively

[parzival]

so amusing, if one looked to the case law and links one would see I am not writing it, YOUR SCHOLARS ARE, so go bitch to them.....

and the best thing is, your implying there is no such thing as freedom, since your implying there is no trust or agreement and everyone is stuck with govt that are also life tenant, this is crazy in itself.

then to top it all off, your all shown the agreement plus the jurisprudence and the case law and still no such thing, so then english law is a fraud by slavery and then the laws do not apply then.....

since that would be in breach of common law and equity rules....

[parzival]

ignorance of municipal law and equity,

but blackstone is wrong also.....

Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals
The objects of the laws of England are so very numerous and extensive, that, in order to consider them with any tolerable ease and perspicuity, it will be necessary to distribute them methodically, under proper and distinct heads; avoiding as much as possible divisions too large and comprehensive on the one hand, and too trifling and minute on the other; both of which are equally productive of confusion.

Now, as municipal law is a rule of civil conduct, commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong; or, as Cicero,1 and after him our Bracton,2 has expressed it, sanctio justa, jubens honesta et prohibens contraria; it follows, that the primary and principal objects of the law are rights, and wrongs. In the prosecution therefore of these commentaries, I shall follow this very simple and obvious division; and shall in the first place consider the rights that are commanded, and secondly the wrongs that are forbidden by the laws of England.

Rights are however liable to another subdivision; being either, first, those which concern, and are annexed to the persons of men, and are then called jura personarum or the rights of persons; or they are, secondly, such as a man may acquire over external objects, or things unconnected with his person, which are styled jura rerum or the rights of things. Wrongs also are a divisible into, first, private wrongs, which, being a infringement merely of particular rights, concern individuals only, and are called civil injuries; and secondly, public wrongs, which, being a breach of general and public rights, affect the whole community, and are called crimes and misdemeanors.

The objects of the laws of England falling into this fourfold division, the present commentaries will therefore consist of the four following parts: 1. The rights of persons; with the means whereby such rights may be either acquired or lost. 2. The rights of things; with the means also of acquiring and losing them. 3. Private wrongs, or civil injuries; with the means of redressing them by law. 4. Public wrongs, or crimes and misdemeanors; with the means of prevention and punishment.https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-101/

for a bunch of lawyers sure dont understand subject matter, and need to be walked through all these things that make up legislation and life tenant under a trust of land by law of property ......

you say slavery due to ignorance, blackstone says it is a choice and shows every aspect of choosing to leave the group and terminate the settlement......

[parzival]

FFS a life tenant is the party that enjoys the rights of a life estate, nothing more. So when you post rambling multi colored posts quoting English law, it really isn't relevant. while common law may draw from British common lae we now have our own laws, statutes and case law, that makes most of it irrelevant.

ok at least we are making some progress, you so agree, that all citizens are life tenants........

BOOK 2, CHAPTER 11
Of Estates in Possession, Remainder, and Reversion
https://lonang.com/library/reference/bl ... d/bla-211/
HITHERTO we have considered estates solely with regard to their duration, or the quantity of interest which the owners have therein. We are now to consider them in another view; with regard to the time of their enjoyment, when the actual pernancy of the profits (that is, the taking, perception, or receipt, of the rents and other advantages arising therefrom) begins. Estates therefore, with respect to this consideration, may either be in possession, or in expectancy: and of expectancies there are two sorts; one created by act of the parties, called a remainder; the other by act of law, and called a reversion.

I. Of estates in possession, (which are sometimes called estates executed, whereby a present interest passes to and resides in the tenant, not depending on any subsequent circumstance or contingency, as in the case of estates executory) there is little or nothing peculiar to be observed. All the estates we have hitherto spoken of are of this kind; for, in laying down general rules, we usually apply them to such estates as are then actually in the tenant’s possession. But the doctrine of estates in expectancy contains some of the nicest and most abstruse learning in the English law. These will therefore require a minute discussion, and demand some degree of attention.

III. An estate in reversion is the residue of an estate left in the grantor, to commence in possession after the determination of some particular estate granted out by him.40 Sir Edward Coke41 describes a reversion to be the returning of land to the grantor or his heirs after the grant is over. As, if there be a gift in tail, the reversion of the fee is, without any special reservation, vested in the donor by act of law: and so also the reversion, after an estate for life, years, or at will, continues in the lessor. For the fee-simple of all lands must abide somewhere; and if he, who was before possessed of the whole, carves out of it any smaller estate, and grants it away, whatever is not so granted remains in him. A reversion is therefore never created by deed or writing, but arises from construction of law; a remainder can never be limited, unless by either deed or devise. But both are equally transferable, when actually vested, being both estates in praesenti, though taking effect in futuro.

In order to assist such persons as have any estate in remainder, reversion, or expectancy, after the death of others, against fraudulent concealments of their deaths, it is enacted by the statute 6 Ann. c. 18. that all persons on whose lives any lands or tenements are held, shall (upon application to the court of chancery and order made thereupon) once in every year, if required, be produced to the court, or its commissioners; or, upon neglect or refusal, they shall be taken to be actually dead, and the person entitled to such expectant estate may enter upon and hold the lands and tenements, till the party shall appear to be living.

so what up with the estates interest your speaking of?

are each one of these title, possession, remainder and reversion are different SUBJECT MATTERS correct?

[Pottapaug1938]

Save your breath, parzival. Until and unless you do as you were told to do, and give us a succinct and literate statement of your purpose in spewing out all of this legal verbiage -- if you can, your words do not merit a further response from anyone on this site -- especially those of us who are or were lawyers, and who (like me) practiced real proerty law.

[Pottapaug1938]

NYGman wrote:

FFS a life tenant is the party that enjoys the rights of a life estate, nothing more. So when you post rambling multi colored posts quoting English law, it really isn't relevant. while common law may draw from British common lae we now have our own laws, statutes and case law, that makes most of it irrelevant.

parzival wrote:
ok at least we are making some progress, you so agree, that all citizens are life tenants........

No, Bucko, that's not what he is saying (and I concur with him). A life estate is the grant of an interest in REAL ESTATE which ends upon the death of the grantee (such as "A grants to B, for the term of his natural life.... I have always held my REAL ESTATE as a tenant by the entirety, and most recently as the trustee of trusts which my wife and I set up. No life estate has ever existed, for me, within my lifetime.

[morrand]

so this professor at law is wrong?
Unsettled Estates: Manitoba's Forgotten Statute and the Chupryk Case
https://commentary.canlii.org/w/canlii/ ... cs240.pdf

I would contend first that the 1856 Act is part of Manitoba law by reason of the fundamental rules governing the reception of English statutes in the settled colonies. Those rules as laid out by Blackstone, were explained and applied by the Manitoba Court of Appeal itself in Meanwell v Meanwell in 1941,34 but the fullest and clearest analysis of the doctrine of reception, both as to statute and judge-made law is surely that of Mr. Jean Côté, as he then was, in his justly-famous articles in the Alberta Law Review, in 1964 and 1977 respectively

Which professor? Did you mean: John C Irvine, Unsettled Estates: Manitoba's Forgotten Statute and the Chupryk Case, 2011 35-1 Manitoba Law Journal 49, 2011 CanLIIDocs 240, http://www.canlii.org/t/2c7v, retrieved on (your date here)? Because your URL is munged in a way that not only renders it useless, but also gives away that it was copied and pasted from somewhere, most probably a web forum.

I mean, basic decency, never mind the principles of intellectual honesty and academic rigor, would seem to demand that you at least name the professor at law who may or may not be wrong, if not give the full citation—which, by the way, CanLII prints at the head of the article when you open it, as you should know if you had clicked the link.

Also, Professor Irvine summarizes the facts of the Chupryk case as follows (at 50): "On the death of his wife, Michael Chupryk found himself (or so the Court determined) the life tenant of a dilapidated and deteriorating property; he was also the holder of a one-third share in the remainder interest, the other two-thirds being vested in Sophie Haykowski, Mr. Chupryk’s god-daughter and relative by marriage." It is hard to square this summary with your assertion that

you so agree, that all citizens are life tenants........

for if all citizens are life tenants, for what reason was it necessary for Mr Chupryk's status as a life tenant to have been determined by the court? For what reason, further, was it necessary for this esteemed professor of law to state that fact?

Oh, by the way, in at least 98% of cases, as soon as you start citing the Cestue Que Vie Act, you are losing the argument.

[JamesVincent]

Longer winded and even more inane patriotdiscussions

[NYGman]

While I do think we are making progress, it isn't in the way you think. I believe you are saying that we are all life Tennant's with respect to the government in some sort of quasi trust relationship with our government.

If that is your legal theory, it's not correct and you will gain nothing from that position.

And just to clarify I do not agree that all citizens are life tenants, and in fact I can't recall seeing any true examples of life estates since law school. I would say very, very, very few life tenants are out there.

[wserra]

your (sic) implying there is no such thing as freedom, since your (sic) implying there is no trust or agreement and everyone is stuck with govt that are (sic) also life tenant

then to top it all off, your (sic) all shown the agreement

who are (sic) life tenant IN FREE (sic) SIMPLE

what is (sic) prescriptions?

law of property is even in it (sic) most simplest (sic) forms.

ignorace (sic) is bliss for the quatloosers that cant read . . . to (sic) stupid to se (sic) it

I get it. The whole mess is a test of irony meters.

[NYGman]

I think I finally get it. He believes that the government is the trustee, and we are life tenants, who are bound by some tacit trust agreement we all asced too when born, where we are somehow granted a life tenancy, and this is where all law comes from. Therefore somehow property law is relevant, and provides the basis for the government to assert its rule.

How he is connecting trusts to property ownership I have no clue, more do I care to have it explained, as the premise is absurd, and really isn't worth entertaining at all.

Clearly all the professed self study and readings he has done have been with out the necessary understanding of legal concepts. Another unlearned self taught know it all, who gets it so wrong. There is a reason lawyers go to law school, and this is a great example of why. I am not saying you can't understand this stuff unless you go to law school, but it's clear that parzival has never gone, and has no understanding of how legal analysis works.

P. S. Life tenants in fee simple means absolutely nothing. You are mixing ownership rights with the right to access/use, and it doesn't work that way. In fact fee simple is absolute, life estate has limitations, you hold one or the other, not both.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

How he is connecting trusts to property ownership I have no clue...

I do. I'm not a fan of ad hominens but I am a big fan of Occam's razor which overrides it. He's an idiot.

[AndyK]

Don't most REPUTABLE publications on case law clearly show the history of following cases which modified or totally overrode the situation in the case at hand?

His failure to be aware of these subsequent rulings clearly demonstrates that he is mining the Internet for something-or-other and not doing any research into legitimate sources of legal information.

To take this a step more, his failure to do so indicates that he has no interest in actual law but only wants to prove ( ??? ) some inane point.

I suggest that he be moderated to the extent that all long cut-and-paste posts go directly to the bit bucket and that we await straight forward statements and answers from him.

[Arthur Rubin]

Don't most REPUTABLE publications on case law clearly show the history of following cases which modified or totally overrode the situation in the case at hand?

Shepardizing....