Search

Among the topics that are introduced and/ or being refined in the context of the revision of the LADM 19152:2012, the legal Land Administration-related aspects are being investigated. With the knowledge and the experience from the developments of the LADM so far, and the ongoing discussion between the parties involved in the standardisation process, the need to clarify certain legal land-related aspects and to examine the alternatives for further refinement is highlighted. Therefore, this paper presents prior work on LADM-related legal aspects since the vote of LADM as ISO standard (2012), till the time of the preparation of this paper (2021) to report the necessary background for this research. This concerns the developments related to the various legal refinements that have been proposed during this time period and specifically the refinement of the legal profiles, the LADM functional support to representation of both statutory and customary tenure and the work regarding the explicit definition of restrictions that arise from Public Law. Moreover, this paper focuses on documenting the proposals on a refined legal model for the LADM Edition II. These include the following: (a) more detailed classification of RRRs, based on the two major types of interests in land: privately agreed interests as well as regulations imposed by a public agency and Public Law restrictions. The paper also includes (b) a discussion on the extent that LADM Edition I provides efficient support for the title and deed registration systems (as others e.g. in socialist environment), as well as (c) a discussion on how restrictions and responsibilities can be modelled as rights’ relationships between an owning and a benefitting Party., GIS Technologie

Among the topics that are introduced and/ or being refined in the context of the revision of the LADM 19152:2012, the legal Land Administration-related aspects are being investigated. With the knowledge and the experience from the developments of the LADM so far, and the ongoing discussion between the parties involved in the standardisation process, the need to clarify certain legal land-related aspects and to examine the alternatives for further refinement is highlighted. Therefore, this paper presents prior work on LADM-related legal aspects since the vote of LADM as ISO standard (2012), till the time of the preparation of this paper (2021) to report the necessary background for this research. This concerns the developments related to the various legal refinements that have been proposed during this time period and specifically the refinement of the legal profiles, the LADM functional support to representation of both statutory and customary tenure and the work regarding the explicit definition of restrictions that arise from Public Law. Moreover, this paper focuses on documenting the proposals on a refined legal model for the LADM Edition II. These include the following: (a) more detailed classification of RRRs, based on the two major types of interests in land: privately agreed interests as well as regulations imposed by a public agency and Public Law restrictions. The paper also includes (b) a discussion on the extent that LADM Edition I provides efficient support for the title and deed registration systems (as others e.g. in socialist environment), as well as (c) a discussion on how restrictions and responsibilities can be modelled as rights’ relationships between an owning and a benefitting Party.

A Land Register should evolve to meet the changing social and policy needs of citizens, government and business. Evolution is about constant change. When there is a significant mismatch between the register and need then reform is required. Reform affects more than just legislation; reform disrupts policy, practice, networks and people. Effective reform is sensitive to this disruption and implements change across the social fabric...

The Land Administration Domain Model (LADM (ISO TC/211, 2012)) is a conceptual model which supports the modelling of social relations with land articulated through rights. There are three principal concepts within LADM: the party (the who) that has a rights relationship (the what) with a plot of land (the where). As an abstraction the party-right-land model makes it easy to conceptualise the state of real rights (all real rights are rights in land). It is simple to model who owns a piece of land and, using a spatial index, determine who holds rights which encumber all, or part, of the same land. When the land identifier (index) is used as a proxy for a party it is also easy to identify what rights benefit the owned land based on a party index. As such it is also reasonably obvious that a party-right-land model is closely related to a Title. A deed registerable in a Land Register is a legal instrument that represents a real rights state change. A deed describes real right transactions that result in the creation, variation or discharge of party-right-land relationships. Henssen (1995, p. 7) describes four general principles that underpin transactions within Land Registers. Critical for automated transactions is the specificity principle: the principle that the transactional party-right-land components must be unambiguously identified. Party verification and designation during registration allows us to uniquely identify the who. The formalised sub-set of registerable rights (numerus clausus) makes it easy to identify the what. The where is the cadastral unit that uniquely identifies each owned plot of land and the associated spatial representation in the cadastral map. The specificity principle means that the Registrar can unambiguously identify the party-right-land relationship which is to change either explicitly or by reference to the corresponding deed in the deed chain. Zevenbergen & Ploeger (2019, p. 4); Palmer (1996, p. 63) both argue for the explicit inclusion

In many jurisdictions sub-ownership rights can be separated from the main body of ownership. In Scotland these are referred to as separate tenements and encompass such ownership rights as minerals, salmon fishing, mines of gold and silver, and petroleum (Reid et al., 1996, pp. 168-171). The main body of ownership may be further encumbered with ancillary rights (such as access) to ensure that holders of sub-ownership rights can effectively enjoy the right they hold. However, these further encumbrances are, in general, not seen as excessively onerous by owners of the main body of ownership. Separated ownership rights, as thus described, have been successfully used in a number of jurisdictions for centuries. Strata (airspace subdivided by reference to structures built in that air) is another form of separated ownership used to define flats in a flatted (shared) building. Ownership within shared buildings requires the division of a building into individually owned property (strata (airspace)) and collectively owned (shared) common property, governed by a set of rules. Owners of flats have interdependent community cooperative rights relationships with other members of the flatted building. These relationships are significantly more complex and onerous than rights required to support other separate tenements (as described above). Similar ownership relationships can be modelled where there is no flatted building, but there are facilities, for example common landscaped areas, that are shared between owners. Hence, a distinction can be made between vertical and horizontal subdivision. The term 'strata title' can be used for vertical subdivisions representing apartment buildings. The term 'community title' can be used for horizontal subdivisions representing planned communities (Sherry, 2016, p. 4). In this paper we refer collectively to horizontal and vertical ownership as cooperative ownership. While 'cooperative ownership' can represent different forms of ownership types

Conventional wisdom indicates that there are two forms of register: a Register of Title and a Register of Deeds. However, we agree with Zevenbergen & Ploeger (2019, p. 7) when they state that in reality most systems are neither purely deeds or Title based and lie on a spectrum between the two poles. As binary concepts, the terms Title and Deed register are poorly suited at representing the reality of this spectrum. We recognise that registers have a need to represent both state and state change, and would argue that a Registrars stance on indefeasibility and error correction is a more nuanced way to both classify and understand registration systems. We argue that the issue is not about whether a jurisdication operates a Deed register or a Title register, rather, we hypothesise that the critical issue is where a jurisdiction places good root of Title: the point in the chain of deeds between the original grant and the current transaction at which the jurisdication deems the rights to be indefeasible. We have called this the point of indefeasibility. Any errors in the deeds prior to the point of indefeasibility are termed register errors and as such can not be corrected. Any errors after the point of indefeasibility are termed transactional errors and as such can be corrected under the general law of property. Traditional Registers of Deeds place the point of indefeasibility at the original grant. This means the whole chain of deeds must be verified for every transaction. This is a costly overhead. Registers of Title place the point of indefeasibility at the last transaction, the opposite end of the spectrum. This severely limits the ability to correct errors. Hence, Registers of Deeds and Registers of Title represent poles on a spectrum of indefeasibility. Based on its own needs a jurisdiction can choose where to place the point of good root of title in the deeds sequence. This produces a hybrid approach which requires elements of both deed and title registers. This i

The Land Administration Domain Model (LADM (ISO TC/211, 2012)) is a conceptual model which supports the modelling of social relations with land articulated through rights. There are three principal concepts within LADM: the party (the who) that has a rights relationship (the what) with a plot of land (the where). A party-right-land model by definition frames rights as property interests in terms of the right holders relationship with land. In most cases this relationship is interpreted to simply mean ownership. According to Williamson et al. (2010, pp. 88-89) "A right is not a relationship between an owner and land. It is a relationship between an owner and others in relation to land, backed up by the state in the case of legal rights. This duality of owners and others is also present in restrictions and responsibilities affecting landowners and users. Each restriction/responsibility involves a duality that imposes obligations on owners in relation to the land for the benefit of others." This aligns with Hohfeldian rights theory. Hohfeld (1917) described rights in terms of their associated privileges, claims, powers, and immunities (see also Hjelmblom et al. (2019, pp. 37-38)). Whilst LADM allows such relationships to be expressed, this is not clearly articulated in the standard (Hjelmblom et al. (2019, p. 52) provide an excellent overview of these issues). This is exacerbated by restrictions and responsibilities which frame rights relationships in terms of owned land rather than relationships between parties. This paper will present a theory of real rights to support LADM modelling. Each jurisdiction creates a set of ownership and non-ownership rights which are recognised by the state and legally formalised. This is numerus clausus: the limited number of basic land and property rights recognised by the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction can reserve some of these rights either directly as alienated ownership (reserved property: e.g. minerals and petrochemicals) or indir

Among the topics that are introduced and/ or being refined in the context of the revision of the LADM 19152:2012, the legal Land Administration-related aspects are being investigated. With the knowledge and the experience from the developments of the LADM so far, and the ongoing discussion between the parties involved in the standardisation process, the need to clarify certain legal land-related aspects and to examine the alternatives for further refinement is highlighted. Therefore, this paper presents prior work on LADM-related legal aspects since the vote of LADM as ISO standard (2012), till the time of the preparation of this paper (2021) to report the necessary background for this research. This concerns the developments related to the various legal refinements that have been proposed during this time period and specifically the refinement of the legal profiles, the LADM functional support to representation of both statutory and customary tenure and the work regarding the explicit definition of restrictions that arise from Public Law. Moreover, this paper focuses on documenting the proposals on a refined legal model for the LADM Edition II. These include the following: (a) more detailed classification of RRRs, based on the two major types of interests in land: privately agreed interests as well as regulations imposed by a public agency and Public Law restrictions. The paper also includes (b) a discussion on the extent that LADM Edition I provides efficient support for the title and deed registration systems (as others e.g. in socialist environment), as well as (c) a discussion on how restrictions and responsibilities can be modelled as rights’ relationships between an owning and a benefitting Party., GIS Technologie

Conventional wisdom indicates that there are two forms of register: a Register of Title and a Register of Deeds. However, we agree with Zevenbergen & Ploeger (2019, p. 7) when they state that in reality most systems are neither purely deeds or Title based and lie on a spectrum between the two poles. As binary concepts, the terms Title and Deed register are poorly suited at representing the reality of this spectrum. We recognise that registers have a need to represent both state and state change, and would argue that a Registrars stance on indefeasibility and error correction is a more nuanced way to both classify and understand registration systems. We argue that the issue is not about whether a jurisdication operates a Deed register or a Title register, rather, we hypothesise that the critical issue is where a jurisdiction places good root of Title: the point in the chain of deeds between the original grant and the current transaction at which the jurisdication deems the rights to be indefeasible. We have called this the point of indefeasibility. Any errors in the deeds prior to the point of indefeasibility are termed register errors and as such can not be corrected. Any errors after the point of indefeasibility are termed transactional errors and as such can be corrected under the general law of property. Traditional Registers of Deeds place the point of indefeasibility at the original grant. This means the whole chain of deeds must be verified for every transaction. This is a costly overhead. Registers of Title place the point of indefeasibility at the last transaction, the opposite end of the spectrum. This severely limits the ability to correct errors. Hence, Registers of Deeds and Registers of Title represent poles on a spectrum of indefeasibility. Based on its own needs a jurisdiction can choose where to place the point of good root of title in the deeds sequence. This produces a hybrid approach which requires elements of both deed and title registers. This i

A Land Register should evolve to meet the changing social and policy needs of citizens, government and business. Evolution is about constant change. When there is a significant mismatch between the register and need then reform is required. Reform affects more than just legislation; reform disrupts policy, practice, networks and people. Effective reform is sensitive to this disruption and implements change across the social fabric...

Among the topics that are introduced and/ or being refined in the context of the revision of the LADM 19152:2012, the legal Land Administration-related aspects are being investigated. With the knowledge and the experience from the developments of the LADM so far, and the ongoing discussion between the parties involved in the standardisation process, the need to clarify certain legal land-related aspects and to examine the alternatives for further refinement is highlighted. Therefore, this paper presents prior work on LADM-related legal aspects since the vote of LADM as ISO standard (2012), till the time of the preparation of this paper (2021) to report the necessary background for this research. This concerns the developments related to the various legal refinements that have been proposed during this time period and specifically the refinement of the legal profiles, the LADM functional support to representation of both statutory and customary tenure and the work regarding the explicit definition of restrictions that arise from Public Law. Moreover, this paper focuses on documenting the proposals on a refined legal model for the LADM Edition II. These include the following: (a) more detailed classification of RRRs, based on the two major types of interests in land: privately agreed interests as well as regulations imposed by a public agency and Public Law restrictions. The paper also includes (b) a discussion on the extent that LADM Edition I provides efficient support for the title and deed registration systems (as others e.g. in socialist environment), as well as (c) a discussion on how restrictions and responsibilities can be modelled as rights’ relationships between an owning and a benefitting Party.

In many jurisdictions sub-ownership rights can be separated from the main body of ownership. In Scotland these are referred to as separate tenements and encompass such ownership rights as minerals, salmon fishing, mines of gold and silver, and petroleum (Reid et al., 1996, pp. 168-171). The main body of ownership may be further encumbered with ancillary rights (such as access) to ensure that holders of sub-ownership rights can effectively enjoy the right they hold. However, these further encumbrances are, in general, not seen as excessively onerous by owners of the main body of ownership. Separated ownership rights, as thus described, have been successfully used in a number of jurisdictions for centuries. Strata (airspace subdivided by reference to structures built in that air) is another form of separated ownership used to define flats in a flatted (shared) building. Ownership within shared buildings requires the division of a building into individually owned property (strata (airspace)) and collectively owned (shared) common property, governed by a set of rules. Owners of flats have interdependent community cooperative rights relationships with other members of the flatted building. These relationships are significantly more complex and onerous than rights required to support other separate tenements (as described above). Similar ownership relationships can be modelled where there is no flatted building, but there are facilities, for example common landscaped areas, that are shared between owners. Hence, a distinction can be made between vertical and horizontal subdivision. The term 'strata title' can be used for vertical subdivisions representing apartment buildings. The term 'community title' can be used for horizontal subdivisions representing planned communities (Sherry, 2016, p. 4). In this paper we refer collectively to horizontal and vertical ownership as cooperative ownership. While 'cooperative ownership' can represent different forms of ownership types

The Land Administration Domain Model (LADM (ISO TC/211, 2012)) is a conceptual model which supports the modelling of social relations with land articulated through rights. There are three principal concepts within LADM: the party (the who) that has a rights relationship (the what) with a plot of land (the where). A party-right-land model by definition frames rights as property interests in terms of the right holders relationship with land. In most cases this relationship is interpreted to simply mean ownership. According to Williamson et al. (2010, pp. 88-89) "A right is not a relationship between an owner and land. It is a relationship between an owner and others in relation to land, backed up by the state in the case of legal rights. This duality of owners and others is also present in restrictions and responsibilities affecting landowners and users. Each restriction/responsibility involves a duality that imposes obligations on owners in relation to the land for the benefit of others." This aligns with Hohfeldian rights theory. Hohfeld (1917) described rights in terms of their associated privileges, claims, powers, and immunities (see also Hjelmblom et al. (2019, pp. 37-38)). Whilst LADM allows such relationships to be expressed, this is not clearly articulated in the standard (Hjelmblom et al. (2019, p. 52) provide an excellent overview of these issues). This is exacerbated by restrictions and responsibilities which frame rights relationships in terms of owned land rather than relationships between parties. This paper will present a theory of real rights to support LADM modelling. Each jurisdiction creates a set of ownership and non-ownership rights which are recognised by the state and legally formalised. This is numerus clausus: the limited number of basic land and property rights recognised by the jurisdiction. The jurisdiction can reserve some of these rights either directly as alienated ownership (reserved property: e.g. minerals and petrochemicals) or indir

The Land Administration Domain Model (LADM (ISO TC/211, 2012)) is a conceptual model which supports the modelling of social relations with land articulated through rights. There are three principal concepts within LADM: the party (the who) that has a rights relationship (the what) with a plot of land (the where). As an abstraction the party-right-land model makes it easy to conceptualise the state of real rights (all real rights are rights in land). It is simple to model who owns a piece of land and, using a spatial index, determine who holds rights which encumber all, or part, of the same land. When the land identifier (index) is used as a proxy for a party it is also easy to identify what rights benefit the owned land based on a party index. As such it is also reasonably obvious that a party-right-land model is closely related to a Title. A deed registerable in a Land Register is a legal instrument that represents a real rights state change. A deed describes real right transactions that result in the creation, variation or discharge of party-right-land relationships. Henssen (1995, p. 7) describes four general principles that underpin transactions within Land Registers. Critical for automated transactions is the specificity principle: the principle that the transactional party-right-land components must be unambiguously identified. Party verification and designation during registration allows us to uniquely identify the who. The formalised sub-set of registerable rights (numerus clausus) makes it easy to identify the what. The where is the cadastral unit that uniquely identifies each owned plot of land and the associated spatial representation in the cadastral map. The specificity principle means that the Registrar can unambiguously identify the party-right-land relationship which is to change either explicitly or by reference to the corresponding deed in the deed chain. Zevenbergen & Ploeger (2019, p. 4); Palmer (1996, p. 63) both argue for the explicit inclusion