§ 20 The legal implementation of the principle of local residence in the Real Property Transactions Act

Author(s):  
Hanna Schmelz
Keyword(s):  
1934 ◽  
Vol 29 (185) ◽  
pp. 105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard Whipple Green
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol III (III) ◽  
pp. 79-96
Author(s):  
Bogusława Dobkowska

An increase in the value of real property triggers, in some circumstances, the obligation on the part of the ownership title holder or perpetual usufructuary to pay a public levy to the commune. The issues of such mutual settlements between the owner of the real property and the commune arising from a change in the value of the real property have been regulated in the Act of 27 March 2003 on Spatial Planning and Development. Those fees include, among others, the so-called zoning fee which is discussed in this article. The analysis is based on views expressed by legal scholars in their writings, applicable legal acts and jurisprudence of administrative courts in this regard. The zoning fee and the legal issues related to its determination which raise the greatest doubts will be examined.


2004 ◽  
pp. 21-29
Author(s):  
Jack Harvey ◽  
Ernie Jowsey

CISM journal ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-24
Author(s):  
G.K. Allred ◽  
S.M. Loeppky ◽  
N.R. Mattson

On September 1,1987, the Alberta Land Surveyors’ Association implemented a codified standard for the certification of building locations relative to property boundaries, i.e., building location certificates. Despite considerable discussion on the subject between members of the surveying profession and mortgage lenders, development officers and lawyers over the last several years, the implementation of this standard received instant attention from all participants in real estate transactions. The reaction to the implementation of this standard for real estate surveys varied from outright hos¬tility on the part of some purchasers, who view the requirement for a surveyors’ certificate as an unneces¬sary and extra cost imposed by mortgage companies, to total acceptance of the standard as a bare mini¬mum by most solicitors, who fully comprehend the problems where the paper title does not agree with the physical attributes of the property on the ground. Meetings were held with various interested groups to discuss the requirements of the Real Property Report with regard to determination of “marketability of title” and in particular “extent of title.”


2020 ◽  
Vol IV (IV) ◽  
pp. 20-34
Author(s):  
Kamil Zaradkiewicz

The Act of 4 April 2019 on amending the Act on Real Property Management added a provision temporarily limiting the possibility of demanding restitution of the expropriated property. On the basis of the new provision, the right of the previous owner or its legal successors to restitute the expropriated property has ceased to be of perpetual nature. This right may not be exercised, as it previously was the case, at any time, as it expires 20 years from the date on which the decision to expropriate became final. This solution should be assessed negatively, as it deepens the non-constitutional nature of the statutory mechanism of restitution of expropriated real property, which makes the demand for restitution dependent on whether the public objective has been assumed (i.e. started to be implemented). If this is the case, then, in the light of the Real Property Management Act of 1997, the restitution of real property can never be claimed, and therefore even if such an objective in the future ceases to be implemented (e.g. as a result of the end of the operation of the real property as part of a public investment). However, in the light of the constitutional arrangements relating to the guarantee of ownership, the right to restitution of the expropriated property should always be vested in the expropriated owner or his/her legal successors whenever the public objective justifying the expropriation has not arisen as well as when it ceased to be implemented. In any event, the condition for claiming restitution shall be a claim made by the person concerned and a return of an appropriate, indexed sum paid as compensation for expropriation. The constitutional principle of the protection of individual status of property of the owner results in the “conditionality” of the transfer of ownership by way of expropriation to the State or another entity. Any existence and implementation of an appropriate objective justifying the expropriation for a public purpose, grants of the ownership and its permanence on the part of these entities. As a consequence, also the possible expiry date of the claim for the restitution of the property, expropriated after the expiry of the public purpose, should run from the time of such expiry and not from the moment when the decision about expropriation became final.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document