3 ms·
No, the courts wouldn't. A genuine innocent purchaser, properly registered at the Land Registry, has good title. (Note: not the fraudster - their downstream vic
by pmyteh 5y ago
No, the courts wouldn't. A genuine innocent purchaser, properly registered at the Land Registry, has good title. (Note: not the fraudster - their downstream victim). The original victim's options for recompense are the scammer, the solicitors who did the conveyance for the fraudster (if negligent), or the Land Registry itself.
Nobody is going to end up as the accidental innocent purchaser of a stolen Sellafield, so that's not a concern. If the government really needs to reverse a transaction under these circumstances it could use a compulsory purchase order or a private act of Parliament.
- bradleyjg 5y agoThat’s a bad rule. The purchaser had the ability to thwart the fraud and the true owner did not. The better rule is that an individual cannot pass a better title than he has.
- pmyteh 5y agoYeah, maybe. There's a reason different jurisdictions go different ways on this. You could also argue that the true owner could have thwarted the fraud by more careful identity management, and the purchaser (in hiring a solicitor to ensure the bona fides of the seller) has done nothing wrong. And if the true owner was absentee, the fraud might not be uncovered for years, long after the purchaser has moved in and made reliance on ownership. The bottom line is that there are two innocent victims and one or both are getting screwed. I prefer your rule too, overall, but there are circumstances where one or the other is going to be more unjust in a particular case.
- mytailorisrich 5y agoWell, if they made the bank take the hit (until they can get money back from the fraudster, and since most residential purchases are financed with a mortgage) I'd wager that suddenly ID/ownership checks would become bulletproof...