Talk:Estate in land

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• flesh out
• subpages

[edit] Accuracy

Are you sure about the equitable estates part of this? Neither liens nor easments are creatures of equity, although they can both exist in equity: so can other estates in land because "equity follows the law". There are very real distinctions (in my jurisdiction at least) between legal and equitable liens and easements. I would be surprised if any other common law country was different, but stand to be corrected. Anyone know? Francis Davey 19:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

What is more -- what about Mortgages?

• Shouldn't future estates, such as reversion, remainder, possibility of reverter, and right of reentry/power of termination be included, as estates that are not possessory (since the estate holder is not currently in possession) but are freehold (since the holder will or may at some point have freehold control of the estate)? None of these seem to be mentioned here. However, I am by no means an expert, so I don't want to make the change and misinform people if there's something I'm not catching. 70.73.37.146 02:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested deletion

This article seems to have very little merit to it. It is a mere skeleton without flesh. The article Estate (law) has been fleshed out to provide the detail and has cross-references to related topics on the right hand side. There is a category 'Real property law', which also covers the ground. There are a wide variety of possible equitable interests. Furthermore, easements (which appear to have their own article are legal not equitable interests (at least in English law), which are owned by the owner of the dominant tenement. I am not categorising this as an 'article for deletion', but would appreciate other users' comments on this. Peterkingiron 20:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My view is that there should be an article about estates in land. The concept of an estate is quite an important one, which has evolved in a complex way over time and deserves an article. What is here is plainly wrong for English law and probably misleadingly confused for all other jurisdictions, but I simply don't know enough comparative property law to simply delete bits. If I have time I might have a go at a complete re-write and do my best. Francis Davey 17:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)