Head 18: Real Burdens Flashcards
(80 cards)
What are real burdens?
Real burdens are positive and negative obligations affecting the burdened property. They require something to be done or not to be done.
Typical examples of burdens which impose restrictions are ones which prevent trading from a residential property or prohibit alterations.
A real burden is an obligation either to do something (‘affirmative burden[ E.g. maintaining a fence or a wall. Or to insure the property. Or to share the cost of maintenance.]’) or not to do something (‘negative burden[ E.g. not to trade, not to build above a certain height, not to keep animals in the property.]’) (s 2 TCA 2003). In general real burdens cannot give a right to use or enter the burdened property (this is the role of servitudes). Negative burdens have replaced negative servitudes.
How are real burdens similar to servitudes?
Like servitudes there is a ‘benefitted property’ and a ‘burdened property’. Real burdens also ‘run with the land’. The types of obligations imposed by real burdens could also be created by simple contract but a contract would not bind successor owners.
Quite often a praedial real burden looks much like a servitude, ie it is enforceable by the owners etc of a single benefited property against the owners etc of a single burdened property. And as with servitudes, there is sometimes more than one benefited property.
How do real burdens differ from servitudes?
Unlike servitudes, real burdens are in effect codified (under the TCA 2003 - part 1 in particular which regulates creation, enforcement and extinction.) so the older case law often remains relevant.
Why did real burdens develop?
⁃ Servitudes cannot impose a positive obligation. And even although servitudes could impose some negative conditions under Roman law, the scope of this was limited (to things like not building).
⁃ Real burdens also developed in the context of the feudal system. Superiors were often the benefited proprietors.
How are real burdens classified?
Almost always, real burdens are praedial (i.e. for the benefit of a benefited property[ E.g. A has the right to recover half the cost of maintaining the boundary fence between his neighbour B due to a real burden. The real burden is in favour of A’s property.]).
But unlike servitudes, it is also possible to have personal real burdens (i.e. a burden without a benefited property which are enforceable by a particular person) (discussed below). These have only been possible since the TCA 2003 s 1. They are far less common than praedial real burdens and the emphasis here is on praedial real burdens.
s 1 TCA 2003
⁃ “(1) A real burden is an encumbrance on land constituted in favour of the owner of other land in that person’s capacity as owner of that other land.
⁃ (2) In relation to a real burden– (a) the encumbered land is known as the “burdened property”; and (b)the other land is known as the “benefited property”.
⁃ (3)Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) above, the expression “real burden” includes a personal real burden; that is to say a conservation burden, a rural housing burden, a maritime burden, an economic development burden, a health care burden, a manager burden, a personal pre-emption burden and a personal redemption burden (being burdens constituted in favour of a person other than by reference to the person’s capacity as owner of any land).”
What is a subdivision?
ie the now benefited and burdened properties were originally joined in single ownership and the land is sold as a separate unit for the first time). It is possible in this case for the burdens to be non-reciprocal, i.e. enforceable by one party only. And it is possible for there to be more than one benefitted property, i.e. enforceable by the neighbours.
What is a common scheme?
a group or community of properties and are reciprocally enforceable within that group or community (this usually works by something called a ‘deed of conditions’). Typical examples are housing estates and blocks of flats. Each property is then both a benefited and a burdened property. These reciprocal burdens are called ‘community burdens’. These special rules apply only to this type of burden.
NB: The distinction between common scheme cases and subdivision cases is fundamental to the working of the TCA 2003.
When are real burdens created?
In practice, real burdens are rarely created other than where land is being sold.
What are ancillary burdens?
(s 2(3)). These are servitude-like in that they allow you to make limited use of the burdened property but this must be tied to another burden (it cannot stand on its own). An example would be the right to enter the burdened property (ancillary) to check it is being maintained (main burden).
What are the various conditions under s 3?
Under s 3 there are various conditions: (s 3(1)-(4) are positive; [s 3(5) skipped] s 3(6)-(8) are negative)
⁃ s 3(1) a real burden must relate in some way to the burdened property and not simply the person who owns that property (i.e. it must be praedial, not simply personal)
⁃ s 3(2) the relationship may be direct or indirect[ E.g. the duties of all the flats in the tenement to maintain the roof. The ground floor flats aren’t beside the roof but they are sufficiently close to be indirectly obligated to maintain the roof.] but shall not merely be that the obligated person is the owner of the burdened property (so you cannot say that the owner of the property for the time being must sing a song to me over the fence every night; the burden must be tied to the property in terms of the content)
⁃ s 3(3) in a case in which there is a benefited property, a real burden must, unless it is a community burden, be for the benefit of that property
⁃ s 3(4) a community burden may be for the benefit of the community to which it relates or of some part of that community (so in the development case, it may be for the benefit of the community as a whole rather than an individual benefitted property (e.g. tenement being factored)
⁃ s 3(6) a real burden must not be contrary to public policy as for example an unreasonable restraint of trade[ This is dealt with on a case by case basis.] and must not be repugnant with ownership[ I.e. it mustn’t be so invasive that the proprietor of the burdened property can’t exercise his rights. So a burden stopping you selling or leasing the property would not be valid.] (nor must it be illegal[ E.g. a real burden that only white people live in the property would contravene race discrimination legislation.])
⁃ s 3(7) except in so far as expressly permitted by this Act, a real burden must not have the effect of creating a monopoly[ E.g. a provision which required a certain company must always be the ‘factor’. Or that a certain company must always provide security guards for the property.] (as for example, by providing for a particular person to be or to appoint–
⁃ (a) the manager of property; or
⁃ (b) the supplier of any services in relation to property).
⁃ s 3(8) it shall not be competent–
⁃ (a) to make in the constitutive deed provision; or
⁃ (b) to import under section 6(1) of this Act terms which include provision,
⁃ to the effect that a person other than the holder of the burden may waive compliance with, or mitigate or otherwise vary, a condition of the burden[ This means that you can’t put a condition in the deed saying that a third party can enforce a burden.].
Is there a fixed list of real burdens?
There is no fixed list of real burdens. Subject to the conditions as to content (must impose only positive or negative obligations), you can invent any real burden you fancy.
How is the creation of burdens regulated?
Creation of real burdens is regulated by s 4 of the Act.
How are real burdens created?
Real burdens are always [Never by positive prescription.] created by dual registration (against both the benefited and burdened properties (s 4(5))).
A real burned must be created in a deed, which is registered against both the title of the benefitted property and that of the burdened property. The deed which creates burdens is known as a constitutive deed[ Under the old law a conveyance or deed of conditions was required, but any deed is sufficient now.]. It must describe both properties or the community in the case of community burdens.
Although this can be any deed, in practice it still tends to be conveyances (if subdivision) and deeds of conditions (if a builder over a common scheme). However there is no restriction in the type of deed used to create real burned after 28 November 2004.
⁃ One example of where you can use a different type of deed (which wasn’t possible under the old law) is a deed discharging an existing burden which is known as a minute of waiver, but imposing a new burden instead.
How does dual registration requirement affect the creation of common scheme real burdens?
For the common scheme this will involve registering against a community (so the single deed will be registered against the community). NB the nemo plus rule applies which means you can only impose burdens on property which you own. Thus the builder burdens the properties before the builder sells them.
What are the rules about what the deed must contain?
1) the full terms of the burden (‘four corners of the deed’ rule)
⁃ In principle the full terms of the real burden must be set out within the ‘four corners’ of the constitutive deed.
⁃ Aberdeen Varieties v James Donald 1939
⁃ Two theatres were owned by the same company. One of the theatres was sold off but the other was kept. The company wanted to stop the one which they sold being used as a theatre. So they imposed a clause[ ‘[the property] shall not be used in all time coming for the performance of pantomime, melodrama or comic opera or any stage play which requires to be submitted to the Lord Chamberlain under the Act for regulating Theatres 6th & 7th Vict c 68 .’.] to prevent the sold theatre being used as a theatre. But because they had referred to an Act of Parliament but failed to set out the whole terms of the Act, it was held that this was not a valid real burden (i.e. they had failed to set out the full terms of the burden.) The deed would have had to copy out the full terms of the statute to create a valid real burden.
⁃ NB this rule from Aberdeen Varieties has slightly been relaxed by s 5 of the TCA which states that where you are referring to public documents or statutes for the purposes of maintenance burdens, you do not have to set out the full terms of that document. A ‘public document’ means ‘an enactment or a public register to which the public readily has access’. (Aimed particularly at burdens providing of rate maintenance of tenements which apportion liability on the basis of rateable value or feu duty).
2) a description of the benefited and burdened properties
⁃ It must be clear what is benefited and what is burdened (by means of a map/plan)
3) the words ‘real burden’ or equivalent must be used
⁃ This is obligatory. So the general rule is that you must state that it is a ‘real burden’ but in some cases an equivalent is sufficient: ‘equivalent’ could be a named type of burden such as a conversation burden.
When do real burdens cease to have contractual effect?
On registration, burdens cease to have contractual effect (s 61) (so they can only be enforced under the law of real burdens rather than contract law.)
Does the nemo plus rule apply to real burdens?
Yes - the land can be burdened only by the owner.
What happens when the real burden is silent as to how long it is to last?
It is presumed to be perpetual (s 7), subject to the rules of extinction.
Who can enforce real burdens?
Any person with proven both title and interest (s 8(1))
Who has title?
Title is tied to the benefited property. The owner of the property has title and also a person with a real right of lease, proper liferent, the non-entitled spouse or civil partner of an owner of the benefited property with occupancy rights. (s 8(2))
Who has interest?
Interest is defined in s 8(3). A person has interest to enforce if:
(a) in the circumstances of the case[ So its taken on a case by case basis.], failure to comply with the real burden is resulting in, or will result in, material detriment to the value or enjoyment of the person's ownership of, or right in, the benefited property; or (b) the real burden being an affirmative burden created as an obligation to defray, or contribute towards, some cost, that person seeks (and has grounds to seek) payment of, or as respects, that cost.
What are the two things to consider with regards to ‘material detriment’?
- the greater the distance from the burdened property, the less likely the breach is to cause material detriment (and thus the less likely you are to have ‘interest’). So e.g. in the Aberdeen Varieties case, this also failed because there was 1/2 mile between the two properties which were the subject of the real burden. It was held that 1/2 mile was too far.
- in addition, the extent of the breach is also relevant to interest. If there is a burden restricting building and you build a rabbit hutch, this is far less likely to be material detriment than a block of flats being built.
Barker v Lewis 2007
This concerned a small new development of four houses near St Andrews. Each house had a ‘no trading’ burden. One of the new owners moved in and opened a bed and breakfast. The other owners went to court to seek interdict to stop this on the basis of the no trading burden. The crux of the issue was whether the bed and breakfast was causing ‘material detriment’ to the other properties in the cul-de-sac. There were arguments about noise and cars etc. Both the Sheriff and Sheriff Principle found, on the facts, that there wasn’t material detriment. The sheriff equated ‘material’ with ‘substantial’. They held that if there were more guest rooms (there were only 2) then they might have held differently. NB A.S. Not entirely comfortable with the decision. The decision underlines that many breaches of burdens will not be challengeable, because even immediate neighbours may not have interest
Kettlewell v Turning Point Scotland 2011
20 houses in the cul-de-sac. Each house had a burden against trading and could only be used for one family only. A charity bought one of the houses and proposed to use it as a care home for 6 unrelated adults. The other houses objected on the grounds of noise and won. It was held that turning the house into a care home for 6 adults did on the facts amount to material detriment.