Length of title an unregistered seller must deduce (LPA 1969, s.23)
Grace Adeyemi is selling a freehold cottage in rural Herefordshire. The title is unregistered: assume the land was not in an area of compulsory registration at the time of either conveyance. Her title deeds include a conveyance on sale dated 1974 from Arthur Bell to Ivor Pugh, and a conveyance on sale dated 1988 from Ivor Pugh to Grace. There have been no dealings since 1988. The draft contract says nothing about the root of title or the length of title to be deduced. The buyer's solicitor insists on seeing the 1974 conveyance as well.
Which of the following best describes the title Grace must deduce?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer E: Title starting with a good root at least 15 years old, so the 1988 conveyance on sale is a sufficient root and the buyer cannot insist on the 1974 conveyance.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
Under an open contract an unregistered seller must deduce title from a good root of title at least 15 years old and all subsequent documents.
Length of title an unregistered seller must deduce (LPA 1969, s.23)
Section 44(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 sets the period of commencement of title a buyer can require under an open contract. Section 23 of the Law of Property Act 1969 reduced that period from 30 years to 15 years for contracts made after 1969. In practice the seller must deduce title starting with a good root of title at least 15 years old, and every document after it. A conveyance on sale is the classic good root because it deals with the whole legal and equitable interest, describes the land and was preceded by the buyer's own investigation of title. The 1988 conveyance to Grace is over 15 years old and is a conveyance on sale, so it is a sufficient root. As the contract is silent, the buyer cannot require earlier title, so the 1974 conveyance need not be produced. The sale will then trigger compulsory first registration.
Why A is wrong: The 30-year period was replaced by 15 years by s.23 of the Law of Property Act 1969.
Why B is wrong: The limitation period for recovering land is not the measure of the title a seller must deduce under an open contract.
Why C is wrong: An open contract requires only a good root at least 15 years old and the documents since, not the whole history of the land.
Why D is wrong: The root must itself be at least 15 years old; there is no requirement that it predate the seller's own acquisition by 15 years.
A little more practice done.
Related questions
Form A restriction and a sale by a surviving co-owner (registered title)
What should Callum's solicitor require in order to obtain good title and register the transfer?
Failure to apply for first registration within two months (LRA 2002, ss.6 and 7)
Which of the following best describes the current position?
Unregistered land: unregistered estate contract void despite notice (LCA 1972 s.4(6))
Which of the following best describes whether Grace can enforce her option against Ellis?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.