#Property dispute

[news-buzz]

Man's bitter £300k 4-year battle with painter neighbour re 4ft stream | UK | News News Buzz

Potter David Wright and wife Laura (right foreground) (Image: Champion News) An artisan potter has beaten his painter neighbour in a £300,000 test case court battle over who owns a brook dividing their gardens in a quintessential English village. David Wright creates ceramics using a Japanese-influenced technique and describes his creative process in the studio he built in his garden in the…

[gagslegal]

Legal solutions for corporate disputes

Looking for expert dispute resolution services in India? Amicus Publico LLP specializes in litigation, arbitration, and mediation, offering strategic solutions for corporate and commercial disputes. With a dedicated team of experienced lawyers, the firm provides effective legal representation across courts and tribunals, ensuring optimal outcomes for clients.

[townpostin]

Court-Ordered Eviction Sparks Controversy in Jugsalai

Disputed Shop Sealed Amidst Ongoing Legal Battle Land ownership conflict leads to tense eviction near Jugsalai Chowk Bazar, raising questions about legal procedures. JAMSHEDPUR – A shop near Jugsalai Chowk Bazar was sealed and vacated following a court order, escalating a long-standing property dispute. Magistrate Deputed Nazir Dheeraj Kumar oversaw the eviction process with District…

[newspatron]

Waqf Board Controversy: India's Next Legal Showdown?

What are your thoughts on the Waqf Board controversy? Share your opinions and join the conversation in the comments below!

Remember the time when Banke Bihari Temple, the spiritual heart of Vrindavan, was almost swallowed up by a paperwork snafu? Yep, the property belonging to the temple was wrongly labelled as a graveyard in government records! That’s the kind of mess the Waqf Board situation in India can create – a big, tangled knot of bureaucracy, history, and religion. And guess what? It’s not just temples;…

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Man Charges Axe Attack By Brother," Vancouver Sun. October 1, 1943. Page 4. --- NEW WESTMINSTER, Oct. 1. - Details of a feud between two elderly brothers in which one is alleged to have threatened the other with an axe, over possession of a farm, were unfolded in Supreme Court here today.

William Cadger, the plaintiff, is seeking to sell the property, dissolve a partnership and distribute the proceeds.

Alexander Cadger is the defendant.

'CHASE ENSUED' The brothers purchased the farm on the Wicks Road, Langley, in 1938, and resided on it until May, 1942.

The plaintiff alleges that he left the farm following decisions to dissolve partnership. On his return, he alleges that Alexander rushed at him with an axe. William grappled with him, took the axe away from him, and threw it away.

The plaintiff then ran away. The brother recovered the axe and followed him, but was unable to catch hirn.

"SELF DEFENSE" William claims that his brother chopped down a small bridge leading from the farm.

The defendant denies the allegation, claiming that the plaintiff attacked him first and that he grabbed the axe in self defense.

The case is continuing.

[approxpropertyjaipur]

Property Dispute: जमीन पर अवैध कब्जा हटाने के ये है नियम, यहां कर सकते हैं शिकायत

अवैध कब्जे की समस्या से आम इंसान ही नहीं सरकार भी परेशान है। अपनी संपत्ति या जमीन को अवैध कब्जे से बचाने के लिए हम कानून के इन तरीकों का इस्तेमाल कर सकते है। सरकार ने अवैध कब्जे से जमीन बचाने के लिए कई नियम बनाए हुए है। आइये जानते है इन नियमों के बारे में

बहुमूल्य होने की वजह से ज़मीन अक्सर अवैध कब्ज़े का शिकार हो जाती है। अवैध कब्ज़ा एक ऐसी समस्या है जिससे न केवल आम नागरिक बल्कि सरकारें भी परेशान हैं।

अब उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार का ही मामला देख लें। राज्य में स्थित 5,936 शत्रु सम्पत्तियों में से 1,826 पर अवैध कब्ज़ा है, जिसे छुड़ाने के लिए मुख्यमंत्री योगी आदित्यनाथ की सरकार भरसक प्रयास कर रही है।

अवैध संपत्ति का कब्जा क्या है?

अगर कोई व्यक्ति जो संपत्ति का स्वामी नहीं है, वो किसी दूसरे की संपत्ति पर उसकी मर्जी के बिना कब्जा कर लेता है तो इसे संपत्ति पर अवैध कब्जा माना जाएगा।

लेकिन यदि व्यक्ति के पास परिसर का उपयोग करने के लिए संपत्ति स्वामी की अनुमति है तो यह एक कानूनी वैद्यता होगी, जिसके अनुसार व्यक्ति परिसर का उपयोग कर सकता है।

इसी आधार पर किरायेदारों को किराए पर संपत्ति की पेशकश की जाती है। जिसके तहत मकान मालिक किरायेदार को एक समय अवधि के लिए अपनी संपत्ति का उपयोग करने के लिए सीमित अधिकार प्रदान करता है। इस समय सीमा के बाद परिसर में निवास करना, संपत्ति पर अवैध कब्जा माना जाएगा।

अवैध कब्जे से कैसे निपटें?

प्रॉपर्टी के मालिकों को न केवल बाहरी संस्थाओं से निपटना पड़ता है, बल्कि अपने किरायेदारों पर भी नजर रखनी होती है, ताकि यह सुनिश्चित हो सके कि उनकी संपत्ति किसी भी धोखाधड़ी गतिविधि का शिकार न हो। इससे बचने के लिए यहां कुछ एहतियाती उपाय दिए गए हैं:

रेंट अग्रीमेंट ज़रूर बनवाये और रजिस्टर करवाए

पैसे के खर्च और रजिस्ट्रेशन के झंझट से बचने के लिए अक्सर मकान मालिक रेंट एग्रीमेंट को नोटरी से बनवा लेते हैं और इसे रजिस्टर नहीं करवाते।

लेकिन यहाँ ये समझना ज़रूरी है की आप और आपके किरायेदार के बीच किसी भी विवाद की स्थिति में रेंट एग्रीमेंट झगड़ा निपटाने में काफी कारगर साबित होगा।

चूंकि कोर्ट केवल के रजिस्टर्ड रेंट अग्रीमेंट को की वैध मानता है इसी लिए ये बहुत ज़रूरी है की किराये पर घर देते समय रेंट अग्रीमेंट बनवा कर उसका रजिस्ट्रेशन करवाया जाये। बिना रजिस्टर किये हुए रेंट एग्रीमेंट की कोई कानूनी वैधता नहीं होती।

#approxproperty #propertydispute #advnitikjain #propertylaws

[alwaysbewoke]

[fullyfazed]

Some older sketches of Hick

[nordfjording]

once when i lived in the south of norway i ended up in a discussion with friends from the southeast (relatively flat area) because their idea of a 'bad road' was a winding road so when i complained about roads in the west being bad they thought i meant there were a lot of turns. and i had to tell them about when someone in my home town owned a shire horse that caused municipal govt a lot of trouble because when the horse walked on public roads the asphalt would crack and crumble bc the ground was too soft to support the weight.

so yknow. we live in different contexts i guess.

[notarieslondon]

Trusted Notary Public Services for Contracts, Wills, and More

Need documents notarized? Our Notary Public services provide fast, reliable, and professional notarization for affidavits, contracts, wills, and more. We ensure accuracy and confidentiality, making the process simple and stress-free.

[buzzblend]

Widow loses life savings after ‘firetrap’ developer fails to repay €150k loan

A controversial developer who asked to borrow the life savings of an 81-year-old widow has failed to repay the money after half a decade of broken promises.

In 2017, the widow gave €160,000 in cash to developer Paddy Byrne, who built the Millfield Manor estate in Co. Kildare where six houses burnt to the ground in under 30 minutes in 2015.

The cash was for a penthouse apartment in Dublin she planned to move into.

The development was built by Victoria Homes, a company that was established by Mr Byrne’s sister Joan just before Mr Byrne was precluded from acting as a company director in Ireland for five years.

After viewing plans for the €630,000 property, in a development called Greygates in Mount Merrion, the pensioner withdrew the cash from her bank and gave it to Mr Byrne.

Some €10,000 of this was a deposit, with the remaining €150,000 provided on the advice of a third party who was known to Mr Byrne and the widow, who said the cash would secure a good price.

According to a handwritten receipt, signed by Mr Byrne, the money was provided on May 29, 2017.

But in November 2017 the widow, a retired primary school teacher, found a more suitable home and asked for her money back.

Mr Byrne agreed to this, saying he would have no problem selling the penthouse and promptly refunded the €10,000 deposit.

However, he asked that the remaining €150,000 be treated as a 14-month loan and promised to pay a 10% annual interest rate.

This effectively turned the widow into an unwitting creditor of Victoria Homes.

According to a handwritten agreement, signed by Mr Byrne, the loan was to be ‘paid back from the sales proceeds’ of the penthouse at his Greygates development.

More than half a decade later, the loan remains unpaid – even after the widow made a criminal complaint to gardaí and took legal action to secure a judgement.

As it is a civil matter, the Garda investigation faltered. And because various other unpaid creditors had previously secured judgements against Victoria Homes, the widow is now unlikely to get her savings back. During the Celtic Tiger years, Paddy Byrne was renowned for his €2.4m Sikorsky helicopter and sponsorship of the Irish National Hunt festival.

But in 2011 his then-firm, Barrack Homes, went bust and Mr Byrne declared bankruptcy in Britain with debts of €100m.

He was banned from acting as a UK director for 10 years in 2012.

This ban was scheduled to end in 2022 – and ran the full course – but it only applied in the UK and Wales.

According to the UK insolvency register today, Mr Byrne’s discharge from UK bankruptcy is ‘suspended indefinitely’ until the fulfilment of conditions made in a 2012 court order.

Separately, in Ireland, he was also restricted from acting as a director for a period of five years – which ended in January 2018.

Mr Byrne is also known for building the Millfield Manor estate in Newbridge, Co. Kildare, where half a dozen houses were razed to the ground within 30 minutes in 2015.

A report into the blaze found ‘major and life-threatening serious shortfalls and discrepancies and deviations from the minimum requirements of the national mandatory building regulations’ at Mr Byrne’s development.

Today, having exited bankruptcy, Mr Byrne is best known as the figurehead behind Victoria Homes and associated businesses, which was set up by his sister and her husband in December 2012, while he was bankrupt.

Mr Byrne was not a director or owner of Victoria Homes during the period of his bankruptcy. But, in 2017, Mr Byrne’s sister and her husband stepped back from Victoria Homes, transferring their shares to an offshore entity in Belize city called Victoria Holdings.

In November 2022, the main lenders to Victoria Homes – the Lotus Development Group – forced the firm into receivership for the second time.

In 2020, Lotus had forced a previous short-lived receivership before agreeing a deal that saw Victoria Homes begin trading normally once more.

Today, Mr Byrne appears to have left Victoria Homes behind and seems to be focusing on a new firm instead.

Set up in the summer of 2020, Branach Developments is entirely owned by Mr Byrne and is not encumbered by any bank debt or mortgages as Victoria Homes was.

According to the latest filed accounts, for the year ended 2021, Branach Developments held ‘tangible assets’ of €210,000 and ‘stocks’ of €600,000.

The accounts also show that, in 2021, Mr Byrne provided the company with an interest-free loan of €1,024,438.

Just last week Mr Byrne’s new firm was one of the winners at the National Property Awards sponsored by the Business Post and Deloitte, among others.

At the award ceremony, Branach Developments took home the prize for best sustainability initiative of the year.

However, Mr Byrne, who shuns publicity and is rarely photographed, does not appear to have attended the ceremony and the award was accepted by a colleague.

This week the Irish Mail on Sunday sent queries to Mr Byrne via his mobile phone, his email at Victoria Homes and his email at Branach Developments, without response.

Queries to his solicitor and the separate accountancy firms representing Victoria Homes and Branach Developments also went unanswered as did calls to the numbers on the websites of these firms.

Mr Byrne also previously declined to respond to questions from the MoS relating to the establishment of Victoria Homes during the period of his bankruptcy.

At the time, Mr Byrne appeared to be living at Ballinrahin House, close to Rathangan on the border of Offaly and Kildare.

The home is a luxury build on 26 acres of stud-railed paddocks with six stables and a 1.3km tree-lined avenue behind electric gates.

The property was on sale for €2.8m in 2009, but land registry records confirm that, in November 2014, it was sold to Victoria Homes for a knockdown price of €484,000.

Ownership of Ballinrahin House was transferred offshore to Victoria Holdings in Belize on April 10, 2018, just weeks before Mr Byrne was due to repay the €150,000 back to the widow.

[eretzyisrael]

“Few places in Jerusalem speak of the larger conflict being waged over the city more than the apartment of 68-year-old Nora Ghaith-Sub Laban,” avers the Associated Press’ Isabel DeBre today (“As a lengthy legal battle ends, a Palestinian family braces for eviction from Jerusalem home“).

Whether or not that is true, what is plainly apparent is that the Associated Press’ repeated failure to accurately cover the Sub Laban story speaks of a larger problem plaguing media coverage of Israeli-Palestinian affairs.

In 2015, the leading news service depicted the Sub Laban’s real estate saga as a story of Israeli dispossession and displacement of Palestinians. “They (Israelis) are trying to uproot us from Jerusalem, they are stealing the houses, the trees and the stones of the city,” AP’s Karin Laub and Mohammed Daraghmeh quoted Nora Sub Laban at the time.

Initially, the 2015 article did not contain a single word about the family’s failure to return to the rented home following lengthy renovations completed in 2001, an absence which jeopardized their status as “protected tenants.” Only after CAMERA contacted editors did AP add a paragraph about the court’s critical finding that the family did not reside in the home for years after 2001, which was the determining factor in the court’s ruling against the Sub Labans’ claim.

At the time, research by CAMERA’s Gideon Shaviv revealed:

The magistrate court (34656-11-10) in a decision upheld by the district court (28083-12-14) found that the family had not returned to the apartment in 2001. According to the court from 2001-2010 (when the property was transferred to the trust) the family did not live in the apartment. From 2010 until 2014, they had only “pretended” to live in the apartment. This decision was based on the following evidence: Additionally, a private investigator testified that he had interviewed neighbors and none of them knew the Sub-Labans. The court found in 2014 that the Sub-Labans have been living with their extended family in another apartment for 30 years, since 1984. The article references the period of 1984 to 2001, stating “Throughout this period, the family rented an apartment elsewhere in the city.” But it does not mention that the family continued to live elsewhere for more than a dozen additional years.

A significant CAMERA-prompted 2016 New York Times editor’s note addressing, in part, the Sub Laban case, stated:

In response to 2015 communication from CAMERA, AP added the following information, buried deep in the 22nd and 23rd paragraphs:

Last year, a magistrate court approved the eviction order. The court’s decision was based on a finding that the apartment had remained empty between 2001 and 2010, saying there was little to no use of water or electricity during that time. The family says the ruling relied heavily on settler testimony, and that it lived in the building throughout the period. Sub-Laban said the home was empty at times because he and his siblings went to university in Jordan and their parents would come to visit, but that otherwise the house was in constant use and the family paid rent. He said there were problems with utilities and that they sometimes had to rely on a neighbor to get water.

Yet even this moderate improvement ignores the fact that the court’s finding about the empty apartment applied not only from 2001 to 2010, but also to the period of 2010 to 2014, when the family was found to have fraudulently staged their residence. The family’s response that the court “relied heavily on settler testimony” does not address the fact that they failed to bring any witnesses to testify on their behalf.

Fast forward to today’s coverage, which completely ignores even the incomplete information about the court’s findings regarding the more limited 2001 to 2010 absence. Signaling deteriorating coverage, DeBre now maintains: “As Muslims of the same Muslim Quarter apartment for seven decades, Nora’s family gained the status of protected tenants, putting Israeli law on their side.”

Ignoring the already underreported absence of 2001 to 2010 which AP belatedly cited in 2015, today AP now notes only trips abroad in 2019, stating: 

Most recently, the Kollel Galicia endowment argued in 2019 that Nora’s absence form her house that year could clear the way for their eviction. Nor said the house was empty at times in 2019 because she was hospitalized with a back injury and later recovered in the houses of her adult children, whom Israeli authorities had previously expelled from the Old City apartment.

In a separate reprise of AP’s substantive shortcomings in 2015 coverage, DeBre’s article errs:

“It’s Jewish property and they want it back,” [Arieh King] said. “The (Ghaith-Sub Labans) don’t have any right to this property.” There is no equivalent right in Israel for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who fled or were forced from their homes during the war surrounding Israel’s establishment to return to lost properties.

First, DeBre is falsely invoking the Israeli Property Law. Since the Sub Labans did not own the property in question, even by their own admission, the Israeli Property Law, which is relevant only in cases of ownership, is completely irrelevant to the Sub Labans’ case.

Second, the claim about disparity in reclaiming property rights is completely disingenuous. Jews who, in 1948, lost their land now under Palestinian control equally have no right to return to their lost properties. For instance, as CAMERA’s colleague Alex Safian has noted, the Dheisheh refugee camp is built on Jewish-owned land and the original Jewish owners have no hope of returning to their lost property.

Moreover, if AP is interested in probing disparity in property rights, it should examine how Palestinian Arabs who lost land in Israel’s establishment in 1948 are entitled to compensation, while no such consideration was ever extended to the 850,000 Jews who fled or were forced out of Arab lands, leaving behind all of their property, businesses and assets.

[ultravioart]

It's also kind of funny that Hater seems to have a type for "Green skin, pink eyes, tall, shoulder pads, sharp ears, etc..." considering Peepers and the watchdogs are basically just... pink eyes. Red technically, but with the pink/purple skin it may elicit enough "cute!" vibes that Hater hired them purely on aesthetics of "this looks totally cool and kawaii to have as minions" lmao It also just occurred to me than since the ol' red eyes are technically red heads, Hater probably doesn't mind orange hair (though he seems to have a preference for blondes). and I can just imagine Peepers slightly freaking out about that since Wander is Orange furred... with a mighty green hat... and Wander adores hater... and Wander is TALLER than Peepers..... lol.... someone is scared of being replaced.

[miichaelbelll]

What is considering litigation?

Considering litigation refers to the process of evaluating the possibility of pursuing a legal claim or lawsuit. This may involve reviewing the facts and circumstances of a case, researching the relevant laws and regulations, consulting with legal experts, and determining whether the potential benefits of filing a lawsuit outweigh the costs and risks involved. The term "considering litigation" implies that a decision has not yet been made and the parties involved are still in the process of evaluating their options.

What kind of cases can be resolved using considering litigation?

Nearly any legal dispute or conflict can be resolved through litigation, but the decision to pursue a lawsuit depends on various factors such as the strength of the case, the likelihood of success, and the costs and benefits involved. Some common types of cases that can be resolved through litigation include:

Contract disputes

Personal injury claims

Employment discrimination cases

Intellectual property disputes

Consumer protection cases

Product liability claims

Real estate disputes

Business disputes

It's worth noting that while litigation can be a way to resolve many types of legal disputes, it is not always the best solution. Alternative dispute resolution methods, such as mediation or arbitration, may be more cost-effective and less time-consuming in some cases.

Which is the right court for me?

The right court for you depends on the specific facts and circumstances of your case. In general, there are several factors that determine which court has jurisdiction over a case, including:

The type of case: Different courts have jurisdiction over different types of cases, such as criminal cases, civil cases, or bankruptcy cases.

The location of the parties involved: A court typically has jurisdiction over a case if the defendant resides or does business in the court's geographic area.

The amount of money at issue: Some courts have jurisdiction over cases involving certain amounts of money, such as small claims court or district court.

It is recommended to consult with an attorney or a legal expert to determine the right court for your case. They can help you understand the legal process, evaluate your options, and make informed decisions about how to proceed.

Who can approach a British Court?

In Britain, the courts are open to anyone who has a legal right to bring a claim or take part in a legal dispute. This includes individuals, companies, organizations, and government entities.

To approach a British court, a person or entity must have standing, which means they have a sufficient interest in the case and are directly affected by the outcome. In some cases, a person may be required to first exhaust other means of resolution, such as mediation or arbitration, before they can bring a case to court.

It's worth noting that the specific rules and procedures for accessing the British court system may vary depending on the type of case and the court in question. In some instances, legal representation may be necessary, especially in complex cases. Seeking the advice of a legal expert can help you understand your rights and obligations and ensure that you follow the correct procedure for approaching the court.

What is the considering litigation process?

The "considering litigation" process refers to the process of evaluating whether to initiate a lawsuit. This process involves reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case, researching the applicable laws, determining the likelihood of success, assessing the costs and risks involved, and deciding whether it is in the best interest of the party to pursue legal action. The process may involve consulting with legal counsel, conducting investigations, and negotiating with the other party in an attempt to resolve the matter without going to court.