Statute of Enrolments

Last updated

Statute of Enrolments
Act of Parliament
Coat of Arms of Henry VIII of England (1509-1547).svg
Long title An Act concerning Inrollments of Bargains and Contracts of Lands and Tenements.
Citation 27 Hen. 8. c. 16
Dates
Royal assent 14 April 1536
Other legislation
Relates to Statute of Uses

The Statute of Enrolments or Enrolment of Bargains of Lands, etc. Act 1535 was a 1536 Act of the Parliament of England that regulated the sale and transfer of landsmen. The Statute is commonly considered an addition to the Statute of Uses, which was passed within the same Parliament, probably due to an omission in the Statute of Uses. It is thought to have been intended to prevent secret conveyancing, although modern academics instead assert that it was so Henry VIII could keep an accurate record of who his freeholders were. The Statute, which only provided for estates "of inheritance and freehold", was easily evaded through the sale of an estate for a limited time period, as leasehold, something given validity at the common law level in 1621 by Lutwich v Mitton.

Contents

Statute

The Statute was intended as an addition to the Statute of Uses, and was passed in the same session of Parliament; Edward Coke, for example, referred to it as "but a Proviso" to the Statute of Uses. The Statute was drafted quickly, by the Clerk of the House of Commons rather than a legislator, and is interesting in that unlike most government bills it completely lacks a preamble. It is thought by Charles Isaac Elton that it was drafted "as some sort of emergency legislation", which Kaye backs up, saying that it was most likely due to some omission in the Statute of Uses. The Statute provided that after 31 July 1536, no land was to be transferred based on a sale unless that sale had been certified by either the courts in Westminster or the local Justices of the Peace, unless it was in those cities or boroughs where this was already required. [1]

The Statute was evaded through simply selling the land for a period of years, rather than freehold, [2] something given validity at the common law by Lutwich v Mitton in 1621. [3] This was valid because the statute only applied to estates "of inheritance and freehold", not of leasehold. [4] The common impression is that the Statute was intended to prevent secret conveyancing; [5] Oxland instead interprets it as being a way for Henry VIII to keep an accurate record of who his freeholders were at any one time. [6]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyhold</span> Customary land tenure in a manorial estate

Copyhold was a form of customary land ownership common from the Late Middle Ages into modern times in England. The name for this type of land tenure is derived from the act of giving a copy of the relevant title deed that is recorded in the manorial court roll to the tenant; not the actual land deed itself. The legal owner of the manor land remained the mesne lord, who was legally the copyholder, according to the titles and customs written down in the manorial roll. In return for being given land, a copyhold tenant was required to carry out specific manorial duties or services. The specific rights and duties of copyhold tenants varied greatly from one manor to another and many were established by custom. By the 19th century, many customary duties had been replaced with the payment of rent.

In English law, a fee simple or fee simple absolute is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. A "fee" is a vested, inheritable, present possessory interest in land. A "fee simple" is real property held without limit of time under common law, whereas the highest possible form of ownership is a "fee simple absolute," which is without limitations on the land's use.

As a legal term, ground rent specifically refers to regular payments made by a holder of a leasehold property to the freeholder or a superior leaseholder, as required under a lease. In this sense, a ground rent is created when a freehold piece of land is sold on a long lease or leases. The ground rent provides an income for the landowner. In economics, ground rent is a form of economic rent meaning all value accruing to titleholders as a result of the exclusive ownership of title privilege to location.

<i>Quia Emptores</i> English statute of 1290

Quia Emptores is a statute passed by the Parliament of England in 1290 during the reign of Edward I that prevented tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation, instead requiring all tenants who wished to alienate their land to do so by substitution. The statute, along with its companion statute Quo Warranto also passed in 1290, was intended to remedy land ownership disputes and consequent financial difficulties that had resulted from the decline of the traditional feudal system in England during the High Middle Ages. The name Quia Emptores derives from the first two words of the statute in its original mediaeval Latin, which can be translated as "because the buyers". Its long title is A Statute of our Lord The King, concerning the Selling and Buying of Land. It is also cited as the Statute of Westminster III, one of many English and British statutes with that title.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Statute of Uses</span> Repealed legislation of the Parliament of England

The Statute of Uses was an Act of the Parliament of England that restricted the application of uses in English property law. The Statute ended the practice of creating uses in real property by changing the purely equitable title of beneficiaries of a use into absolute ownership with the right of seisin (possession).

Use, as a term in the property law of common law countries, amounts to a recognition of the duty of a person to whom property has been conveyed for certain purposes, to carry out those purposes. In this context "use" is equivalent to "benefit".

A profit, in the law of real property, is a nonpossessory interest in land similar to the better-known easement, which gives the holder the right to take natural resources such as petroleum, minerals, timber, and wild game from the land of another. Indeed, because of the necessity of allowing access to the land so that resources may be gathered, every profit contains an implied easement for the owner of the profit to enter the other party's land for the purpose of collecting the resources permitted by the profit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Land Registration Act 2002</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Land Registration Act 2002 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which repealed and replaced previous legislation governing land registration, in particular the Land Registration Act 1925, which governed an earlier, though similar, system. The Act, together with the Land Registration Rules, regulates the role and practice of HM Land Registry.

Forty-shilling freeholders were those who had the parliamentary franchise to vote by virtue of possessing freehold property, or lands held directly of the king, of an annual rent of at least forty shillings, clear of all charges.

<span title="Anglo-Norman-language text"><i lang="xno">Cestui que</i></span> Concept in English law regarding beneficiaries

Cestui que is a shortened version of "cestui a que use le feoffment fuit fait", literally, "the person for whose use/benefit the feoffment was made"; in modern terms, it corresponds to a beneficiary. It is a Law French phrase of medieval English invention, which appears in the legal phrases cestui que trust, cestui que use, or cestui que vie. In contemporary English the phrase is also commonly pronounced "setty-kay" or "sesty-kay". According to Roebuck, Cestui que use is pronounced. Cestui que use and cestui que trust are often interchangeable. In some medieval documents it is seen as cestui a que. In formal legal discourse it is often used to refer to the relative novelty of a trust itself, before that English term became acceptable.

A leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) was a statutory tribunal in England which determined various types of landlord and tenant dispute involving residential property in the private sector. An LVT consisted of a panel of three; one with a background in property law ; one with a background in property valuation generally a qualified surveyor; and a layman, although some decisions of an LVT were decided by a single member. LVTs were non-departmental public bodies.

In English land law, a rentcharge is an annual sum paid by the owner of freehold land (terre-tenant) to the owner of the rentcharge (rentcharger), a person who need have no other legal interest in the land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Representation of the People (Ireland) Act 1832</span> United Kingdom law reforming the electoral system in Ireland

The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act 1832, commonly called the Irish Reform Act 1832, was an Act of Parliament that introduced wide-ranging changes to the election laws of Ireland. The act was passed at approximately the same time as the Reform Act 1832, which applied to England and Wales.

In property law, alienation is the voluntary act of an owner of some property to dispose of the property, while alienability, or being alienable, is the capacity for a piece of property or a property right to be sold or otherwise transferred from one party to another. Most property is alienable, but some may be subject to restraints on alienation.

Lease and release is literally the lease (tenancy) of non-tenanted property by its owner followed by a release (relinquishment) of the landlord's interest in the property. This sequence of transactions was commonly used to transfer full title to real estate under real property law. Lease and release was a mode of conveyance of freehold estates formerly common in England and in New York for tax avoidance and speed. Between its parties it achieves the same outcome as a deed of grant/transfer/conveyance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of Property Act 1925</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Law of Property Act 1925 is a statute of the United Kingdom Parliament. It forms part of an interrelated programme of legislation introduced by Lord Chancellor Lord Birkenhead between 1922 and 1925. The programme was intended to modernise the English law of real property. The Act deals principally with the transfer of freehold or leasehold land by deed.

A freehold, in common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales, Australia, Canada and Ireland, is the common mode of ownership of real property, or land, and all immovable structures attached to such land.

The history of English land law can be traced back to Roman times. Throughout the Early Middle Ages, where England came under rule of post-Roman chieftains and Saxon monarchs, land was the dominant source of personal wealth. English land law transformed further from the Saxon days, particularly during the post-Norman Invasion feudal encastellation and the Industrial Revolution. As the political power of the landed aristocracy diminished and modern legislation increasingly made land a social form of wealth, subject to extensive social regulation such as for housing, national parks, and agriculture.

<i>James v United Kingdom</i>

James v United Kingdom [1986] is an English land law case, concerning tenants' (lessees') statutory right to enfranchise a home from their freeholder and whether specifically that right, leasehold enfranchisement, infringes the freeholder's human rights in property without being in a valid public interest.

Fleecehold refers to the inclusion of onerous terms in the deeds of a freehold property or the lease of a leasehold property in the United Kingdom. The practice of fleecehold is known to be increasing in the UK, according to the results of FOI requests to the Land Registry. At a minimum, tens of thousands of houses are affected, but it is unknown how quickly the number is increasing. There have been several proposals by elected officials and campaign groups to abolish or mitigate the practice, and it has been questioned in Parliament and the devolved assemblies.

References

  1. Kaye (1988) p.617
  2. Holdsworth (2004) p.159
  3. Holdsworth (2004) p.160
  4. Oxland (1985) p.64
  5. Kaye (1988) p.618
  6. Oxland (1985) p.63

Bibliography