This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Someone has put a complaint tag on this article decrying the lack of a "World View" or something like that in this article. I removed that tag, and I inserted a couple of words to emphasize that this article is about concepts under English Common Law, namely about "Real Property". Let the rest of the world run their legal propertu ownership systems as they please: their governments hve the right to do that. There is more than one way to slice up a pie, and the distinctions between different kinds of property can be done differently -- therefore, they most certainly are, and I have no doubt about that. For example, my instincts about the way that they do it in Cuba as compared with the way that they do it in Jamaica, or in the Bahamas, are that they are doubtless a good deal different.

Therefore, that comment about this article lacking a "World View" was completely silly. 04:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence of the article states that "'Real' property therefore is property owned by the Crown. In short, land." This is of course absurd since the USA uses the same interpretation and the USA is not a monarchy. The original article had its roots in England but it was not evalutated for international reading on Wikipedia. MPLX/MH 16:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(I meant "Crown" in a historical sense but I accept your point. I stand corrected) Alex756

Even then it is still in error because under the Act of Settlement the British Royal Family no longer has the standing once applied to give a legal interpretation to the meaning of the word "royal" and therefore further explanation is required. See also my comments above about the 1911 article under your original observations. MPLX/MH 05:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact the whole article is rubbish. The "real" derives from a common law distinction real v. personal which depended on the form of action that would be used to protect the property. i.e. whether a real or personal action was needed. This means that, in common law terms, an advowson is realty but a leasehold is personalty. The movable v immovable distinction is a continental one and not a common law one. In the USA I believe that the definition has moved in that direction, but to make the article historically accurate and NPOV the original definition needs to be explained and the modifications outlined. Francis Davey 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, real and royal do NOT have the same etymology. REAL is from Latin res (meaning "thing"), while ROYAL comes from Latin rex (meaning "king"). That's just a colossal blunder.-- JackLumber 19:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

How about a solution which reduces the scope of the article? At the moment it tries to talk about ownership interests, fee simple, and so on, which are much better explained elsewhere. Surely the way forward would be an article which explains the common law distinction between real and personal property, notes that it is not historically quite the same as the moveable v immoveable distinction and discusses its historical origins in general, and then points to any particular use of "real proper" as a phrase with a changed meaning in the jurisdictions. We can deal with property law in general elsewhere, and law directed specifically at land (say) somewhere else as well. Francis Davey 19:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The previous editior asked us to Compare Real Property:' from the "1911 Encylopedia":

The BIG problem with this 1911 article is its source. It is from the "1911 Encylopedia" (I assume this means the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.) The problem with that particular publication is that it was still owned in Britain and published primarily for Britain. Its articles were not international in scope and this presented a lot of problems since common law is applied by many (but not all) of the states of the United States and their interpretations are varied. Therefore to use this old and out of date "one size fits all" attempt to explain something will create a lot of problems for the reader, but the information will neither be accurate or up-to-date.

Unless this Wikipedia article is broken down into separate sub-articles called "Real property: UK"; "Real property: Texas"; "Real property: Virginia" and so on, then this one article must be both international and comprehensive and of course it should also be up-to-date. As a side note the ownership of Encyclopedia Britannica passed into US ownership and its content became far more international in scope. MPLX/MH 05:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1911 Encylopedia article

Compare Real Property: from the 1911 Encylopedia REAL PROPERTY. The land law of England and of countries whose law is based upon that of England stands in a peculiar position, which can. be understood only by an outline of its history.

History.—Such terms as “fee” or “ homage” carry us back into feudal times. Rights of common and distress are based upon still older institutions, forming the very basis of primitive law. The conception of tenure is the fundamental ground of distinction between real and personal estate, the former only being strictly entitled to the name of estate (q.v.). The division into real and personal is coincident to a great extent with that into immovable and movable, generally used by systems of law founded on the Roman (see PERSONAL PROPERTY.) That it is not entirely coincident is due to the influence of the Roman law itself. The Greeks and the Romans of the republic were essentially nations of citizens; the Teutons were essentially a nation of land-folk; the Roman empire bridged the gul’ between the two. It is probable that the English land la~ was produced by the action of the policy adopted in the lowel empire, finally developed into feudalism, upon the previously existing course of Teutonic custom. The distinguishing features of the Teutonic system were enjoyment in common and the absence of private ownership, except to a limited extent. The principal features of the old English land law before the Conquest, from which the modern law has developed, were (1) liberty of alienation, either by will or inter vivos, of such land as could be alienated, chiefly, if not entirely, bocland, subject always to the limits fixed by the boc; (2) publicity of transfer by enrolment in the shire-book or church-book; (3) equal partition of the estate of a deceased among the sons, and failing sons among the daughters; (4) cultivation. to a great extent by persons in various degrees of serfdom, owing money or labour rents; (5) variety of custom, tending to become uniform, through the application of the same principles in the local courts; (6) subjection of land to the trinoda necessitas, a burden imposed for the purpose of defence of the realm. The rudiments of the conceptions of tenure and of the crown as lord paramount were found in the old English system, and lnnland was an anticipation of the limited interests which afterwards became of such importance.1 The connexion of political privileges with the ownership

i The name has not remained as in Germany and Denmark. A fief is still Lehen in Germany, Lehn in Denmark of land is not peculiar to the pre-Conquest or any other period. It runs through the whole of English history.

The elements of feudalism so far existed in England under the Anglo-Saxon and Danish kings as to make it easy to introduce it in full at the Norman Conquest. What the Norman Conquest did was not to change all at once allodial into feddal tenure, but to complete the association of territorial with personal dependence in a state of society already prepared for it.i “ Nulle terre sans seigneur” was one of the fundamental axioms of feudalism. There might be any number of infeudations and subinfeudations to mesne lords, but the chain of seigniory was complete, depending in the last resort upon the king as lord paramount. Land was not owned by free owners owing only necessary militia duties to the state, but was held of the king by military service of a more onerous nature. The folkland became the king’s land; the soldier was a landowner instead of the landowner being a soldier. Free owners tended to become tenants of the lord, the township to be lost in the manor.1 The common land became in law the waste of the manor, its enjoyment resting upon a presumed grant by the lord, On the other hand, the whole of England did not become manorial; the conifict between the township and the manor resulted in a compromise, the result of which affects English tenure to this day. But it was a compromise much to the advantage of the privileged class, for in England more than in any other country the land law is the law of the nobility and not of the people. One reason of this is that, as England was never so completely feudalized as were some of the European continental states, the burden of feudalism was not so severely felt, and has led to less agitation for reform.

The land forfeited to the Conqueror was regranted by him to be held by military service due to the king, not to the mesne lord as in European continental feudalism. In 1086 at the council of Salisbury all the landholders swore fealty to the crown. In the full vigour of feudalism the inhabitants of England were either free or not free. The free inhabitants held their lands either by free tenure (liberum tenementum, franktenement) or by a tenure which was originally that of a non-free inhabitant, but attached to land in the possession of a free man. Franktene-, ment was either military tenure, called also tenure in knight service or chivalry (including barony, the highest tenure known to the law, grand serjeanty and the special forms of escuage, castle-guard, cornage and others) or socage (including burgage and petit serjeanty), or frankalmoign (libera eleemosyna) or divine service, by which ecclesiastical corpoiations generally held their land.3 The non-free inhabitants were in Domesday Book servi, cotarii or bordari-i, later nativi or villani, the last name being applied to both free men and serfs. All these were in a more or less dependent condition. The free tenures all exist at the present day, though, as will appear later, the military tenures have shrunk into the unimportant and exceptional tenure of grand serjeanty. The non-free tenures are to a certain extent represented by copyhold. The most important difference between the military and socage tenures was the mode of descent. Whether or not a feudal benefice was originally hereditary, it had certainly become so at the time of the Conquest, and it descended to the eldest son. This applied at once in England to land held by military service as far as regarded the capital fief. The descent of socage lands or lands other than the’ capital fief for some time followed the old pre-Conquest rule of descent. Thus in the socalled “Laws of Henry I.” the lands other than the capital fief, and in Glanvill, who wrote in the time of Henry II., socage lands, if anciently partible (antiquitus div-i sum) , were divided among all the sons equally. But by the time of Bracton (Henry III.) the course of descent of lands held by military service had so far

1” The relation of vassalage, originally personal became annexed to the tenure of land “ (Palgrave, Rise and Progress of Ihe English Commonwealth, vol. i. p. 504).

It is a disputed point whether the manor organization existed before the Conquest; but its full development seems to have been later than that event.

Frankalmoign was not always regarded as a distinct tenure. Thus Littleton (~ ITS) says that all that is not tenure in chivalry is tenure in socage. prevailed that, though it was a question of fact whether the land was partible or not, if there was no evidence either way descent to the eldest son was presumed. Relics of the old custom still remain in the case of gavelkind. The military tenant was subject to the feudal incidents, from which the tenant in socage was exempt. These incidents, especially wardship and ma’rriage, were often oppressive. Alienation of lands by will, except in a few favoured districts, became impossible; alienation inter vivos was restrained in one direction in the interests of the heir, in another in the interests of the lord. At the time of Glanvill a tenant had a greater power of alienation over land which he had purchased (terra acquietata) than over land which he had inherited. But by the time of Bracton the heir had ceased to have any interest in either kind of land. The lords were more successful. It was enacted by Magna Carta that a free man should not give or sell so much of his land as to leave an amount insufficient to perform his services to his lord. In spite of this provision, the rights of the lords were continually diminished by subinfeudation until the passing of the Statute of Quia Emptores. Alienation by a tenant in chief of the crown without licence was a ground of forfeiture until 1 Edw. III. st. 2, c. 12, by which a fine was substituted. The modes of conveyance at this time were only two, feoffment with livery of seisin for corporeal hereditaments, grant for incorporeal hereditaments. Livery of seisin, though public, was not officially recorded like the old English transfer of property. The influence of local custom upon the land law must have become weakened after the circuits of the judges of the King’s Court were established by Henry II. Jurisdiction. over litigation touching the freehold was taken away from the lord’s courts by 15 Ric. II. c. I2.

The common law as far as it dealt with real estate had in the main assumed its present aspect by the reign of Henry III. The changes which have been made since that date have been chiefly due to the action of equity and legislation, the latter sometimes interpreted by the courts in a manner very different from the intention of parliament. The most important influence of equity has been exercised in mortgage and trusts in the doctrine of specific performance of contracts concerning real estate, and in relief from forfeiture for breach of covenant.

History of Real Estate Legislaiion.—The reign of Edward I. is notable for three leading statutes, all passed in the interests of the superior lords. The Statute of Mortmain (~ Edw. I. St. 2, c. 13) ~s the first of a long series directed against the acquisition of land by religious and charitable corporations. The statute De Donis Conditionalibus (13 Edw. I. c. I) forbade the alienation of estates granted to a man and the heirs of his body, which before the statute became on the birth of an heir at once alienable (except in the case of gifts in frankmarriage), and so the lord lost his escheat. The statute Quia Emptores (18 Edw. I. c. I) preserved those rights of the lords which were up to that time subject to be defeated by subinfeudation, by enacting that in any alienation of lands the alienee should hold them of the same lord of the fee as the alienor.4 Since 1290 it has been impossible to create an estate in fee-simple to be held of a mesne lord, or to reserve a rent upon a grant of an estate in fee (unless in the form of a rent-charge), or to create a new manor. The statute, however, does not bind the c-rown. The practical effect of the statute was to make the transfer of land thenceforward more of a commercial and less of a feudal transaction. The writ of elegit was introduced by the Statute of Westminster II. in 1285 as a creditor’s remedy over real estate. It has, however, been considerably modified by subsequent legislation. From 1290 to the reign of Henry VIII., there is no statute of the first importance dealing with real estate. The reign of Henry VIII., like the reign of Edward I., is signalized by three acts, the effects of which continue to this day. The one which has had the most lasting influence in law is the Statute of Uses, 27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 (see C0NvEYANcINO; TRUST). The Statute of Uses was intended to provide against secrecy of sales of land, and as a necessary sequel to it an act of the same Tenants in chief of the crown were liable to a fine on alienation until 12 Car. II~ c year (27 Hen. VIII. c. 16) enacted that all bargains and sales of land should be duly enrolled. Bargain and sale was a form of equitable transfer which had for some purposes superseded the common law feoffment. It applied only to estates of inheritance and not to terms of years. The unforeseen effect of 27 Hen. VIII. c. 16 was to establish as the ordinary form of conveyance until 1841 the conveyance by lease and release.’ Uses having become legal estate by the Statute of Uses, and therefore no longer devisable, 32 Hen. VIII c. I (explained by 34 & 35 Hen. VIII.

c. 5) was passed to remedy this inconvenience. It is still law as to wills made before 1838 (see WILL). In the reign of Elizabeth the acts of 13 Eliz. c. 5 and 27 Eliz. c. 4 avoided fraudulent conveyances as against all parties and voluntary conveyances as against subsequent purchasers for valuable consideration. Early in the reign of Charles II. the act of 1661 (12 Car. II. c. 24) turned all the feudal tenures (with the exception of frankalmoign and grand serjeanty) into tenure by free and common socage and abolished the feudal incidents. The Statute of Frauds (29 Car. II. c. 3) contained provisions that certain leases and assignments, and that all agreements and trusts relating to land, should be in writing (see FRAUD). The land registries of Middlesex and Yorkshire date from the reign of Anne (see LAND REGISTRATION). Devises of land for charitable purposes were forbidden by the Mortmain Act (9 Geo. II. c. 36). In the next reign the first general Inclosure Act was passed, 41 Geo. III. c. 109 (see COMMoNs). In the reign of William IV. were passed the Prescription, Limitation and Tithe Commutation Acts; fines and recoveries were abolished and simpler modes of conveyance substituted by 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74; and the laws of inheritance and dower were amended by 3 & 4 Will. IV. cc. 105, 106. In the reign of Victoria there was a vast mass of legislation dealing with real estate in almost every conceivable aspect. At the immediate beginning of the reign stands the W’ills Act. The transfer of real estate was simplified by 8 & 9 Vict. C. 106 and by the Conveyancing Acts of 1881 and 1882. Additional powers of dealing with settled estates were given by the Settled Estates Act 1856, later by the Settled Estates Act I877, and the Settled Land Act 1882. Succession duty was levied for the first time on freeholds in 1853. The strictness of the Mortmain Act has been relaxed in favour of gifts and sales to public institutions of various kinds, such as schools, parks and museums. The period of limitation was shortened for most purposes from twenty to twelve years by the Real Property Limitation Act 1874. Several acts were passed dealing with the enfranchisement and commutation of copyholds and the preservation of commons and open spaces. The Naturalization Act 28-70 enabled aliens to hold and transfer land in England. The Felony Act 1870, abolished forfeiture of real estate on conviction for felony. The Agricultural Holdings Acts 1883 and 1900, and other acts, gave the tenant of a tenancy within. the acts a general right to compensation for improvements, substituted a year’s notice to quit for the six months’ notice previously necessary, enlarged the tenant’s right to fixtures, and limited the amount of distress. By the Intestate Estates Act 1884 the law of escheat was extended to incorporeal hereditaments and equitable estates. Among other subjects which have been dealt with by legislation in the I9th century may be mentioned land transfer, registration, mortgage, partition, excambion, fixtures, taking of land in execution, declaration of title and apportionment. Hardly a year passes in which the land law is not altered to a greater or less degree.

Real estate - at the present day is either legal or equitable, a difference resting mainly upon historical grounds. The following observations apply in general to both kinds of estate. The usua classification of interests in real estate regards either the extent the time or the mode of enjoyment. The division accordinl to the extent is in the first instance into corporeal and incorporea hereditaments, a division based upon the Roman law division o res into corporales and incorporates, and open to the same objection From the reign of Edward IV. at latest up to the Fines am

Recoveries Act of 1833 fines and recoveries were also recognized a a means of conveyance. They are so regarded in ‘the Statute of Uses. that it is unscientific as co-ordinating subjects of rights with the rights themselves.2 Corporeal hereditaments, says Blackstone, “consist of such as affect the senses, such as may be seen and’ handled by the body; incorporeal are not the objects of sensation, can neither be seen nor handled, are creatures of the mind, and exist only in contemplation.” Corporeal hereditaments are all necessarily freehold;i an interest in land less than freehold, such as a term of years, is personalty only. There was no room for such an interest in the feudal gradation of tenure; it was regarded as a mere personal contract and was incapable of the incidents of tenure. By the Conveyancing Act 1881 the residue of a long term of years could in certain cases be enlarged into the fee-simple. A copyhold is in strict law only a tenancy at the will of the lord. Estates of freehold are either estates for life or in fee (called also estates of inheritance), the latter being in fee-tail or in fee-simple. An estate for life may be, either for the life of the tenant or for the life of another person, the latter called an estate pur autre vie. The former kind of estate includes estates of dower and curtesy. An estate in fee is called a fee simply, an obvious sign of its feudal origin. Estates tail are either general or special, the latter being in tail male or (rarely) in tail female. There may also be a quasientail of an estate pur autre vie. An estate in fee-simple is the largest estate known to English law. Its ordinary incidents are an oath of fealty (never exacted), escheat, and (in a manor) suit of the court baron, and occasionally a small quit-rent and relief. All these are obviously relics of the once important feudal incidents. Incorporeal hereditaments consist chiefly, if not wholly, of rights in alieno solo. They are divided by Joshua Williams (Real Property, pt. ii.) into (I) reversions, remainders and executory interests, (2) hereditaments purely incorporeal, the last being either appendant, appurtenant or in gross. Examples are profits a prendre (such as rights of common), easements (such as rights of way),4 seigniories, advowsons, rents, tithes, titles of honour, offices, franchises. Before 1845 corporeal hereditaments were said to lie in livery, incorporeal in grant. But by the Real Property Act 1845 all corporeal hereditaments are, as regards the conveyance of the immediate freehold thereof, to be deemed to lie in grant as well as in livery. With regard to the time of enjoyment, estates are either in possession or in expectancy—that is, in reversion or remainder or executory interests (see REMAINDER). With regard to the mode of enjoyment, estates are either joint, in common, in coparcenary or in severalty.

Exceptional - Tenures.—It has been already stated that there are still to be found survivals of the old pre-Conquest customary law. They are found both in the tenure and in the conveyance of land. The only customs of which judicial notice is taken are gavelkind (q.v.) and borough-English (q.v.). Any other local customs, as in manors, must be proved ‘by evidence. The tenures of frankalmoign and grand serjeanty were specially preserved by 12 Car. II. c. 24.

Title.—This is the name given to the mode of acquisition of rights over real estate. Title may arise either by alienation, voluntary or involuntary, or by succession. Voluntary alienation is either inter vivos or by will. The former branch is practically synonymous with conveyance, whether by way of sale, settlement, mortgage or otherwise. As a general rule alienation of real estate inter vivos must be by deed since 8 & 9 Vict. c. 106. Since that act a deed of grant has superseded the old forms of feoffment and lease and release. Considerable alterations in the direction of shortness and simplicity have been made in the law of transfer of real estate by the Conveyancing Acts 1881, 1882 and tie Land Transfer Acts 1875 and 1897. The word “grant” is no lon~er necessary for a conveyance, nor are the old words of limitation heirs” and “heirs of the body.” It is sufficient to use the words “in fee-simple,” “ in tail,’’ ‘‘in tail male,” “in tail female.” Many provisions usually inserted in deeds, such as covenants for title by a beneficial owner and powers of appointment of new trustees, obtain statutory sanction. Forms of mortgage, conveyance’ and settlement are appended to the act. The Solicitors’ Remuneration Act 1881 was passed as a necessary sequel to the Conveyancing Act, and the remuneration of solicitors now stands upon a different and more satisfactory basis. For acquisition by will and succession, see WILL; INHERITANCE. Involuntary alienation is by bankruptcy (q.v.) and by other means of enforcing the rights of creditors over land, such as distress or execution. It may also arise by the exercise by the state of its right of eminent domain for public purposes, as under the Lands Clauses and other acts.i

2 In spite of this objection the division is adopted by the legisla ture; see, for instance, the Intestate Estates Act 1884. In the category of corporeal hereditaments are also incluciec certain accessories to corporeal hereditaments proper, such a~ growing crops, fixtures, title-deeds, &c. It should be noticed that an easement in gross cannot exist. The right of the state to contribution from land for revenui purposes and to stamp duties on deeds perhaps falls under tht head. These imposts are really involuntary alienations of par of the profit of the land.

You will notice that real estate is just a small part of this article about real property. Alex756

Question: How about the term "immovable property" used in most countries of the world? I think the term real/royal property is outdated and a more exact term Immovable Property should be used from now.

No. Please no. There is a perfectly sensible distinction between movable and immovable property, which is well understood in many civil law jurisdictions. The solution is to have an article about them, and then another article about real property which explains the origins of the term, the way in which common law made a different distinction from roman law (which makes a lot of things clearer) and the way in which some jurisdictions (in particular in the US) have moved towards the Roman distinction. If you use "immovable property" that will certainly be POV. A leasehold is still a chattel and an advowson still an item of real property in my jurisdiction (where the term was invented), yet an advowson cannot be said to be any more immovable than a chose in action such as a debt, and a leasehold is immovable. Francis Davey 12:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC) reply

The article mentions Napoleonic Code when referring to Louisiana, but even the article on Napoleonic Code (which this section refers to) notes that the Louisiana civil code is based more on Spanish and Roman traditions. I see no reason why this article should continue the myth of Louisiana and Napoleonic Code without strong citations. - Oswald Glinkmeyer 13:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The phrase referring to Napoleonic Code has been removed, so is no longer an issue in the current version. Oswald Glinkmeyer ( talk) 19:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply

When I chanced on this entry, I was appalled to discover not a single reference. I have supplied two contemporary law texts. Anyone who knows of better texts is free to add them, and delete Stoebuck & Whitman, and Thomas. Somebody needs to add citations to this entry, linking its assertions of fact to chapter and verse from standard law texts.

This entry fails to convey that the law of land ownership is a rich and fascinating subject, especially its historical dimension. In USA law schools, property law is the subject of a hard first year course. In New Zealand, property law is a year-long second year course. To our preindustrial ancestors, the law of land ownership, was THE involved legal subject, as contracts were overwhelmingly informal, tort/accident law barely existed, and the criminal law mostly echoed Christian moral convictions. Meanwhile, complicated land titles, customarey easements and such, and divisions of property rights across agents and over time, all flourished. Land ownership, as almost the only long lived store of wealth, was the backbone of the preindustrial class system.

Nearly all real property tenancy in industrial societies takes the following simple forms:

• Public ownership;
• Fee simple;
• Residential leaseholds with a 1 year term;
• Commercial leaseholds with terms ranging from 3 to 5 years.

The reason is simple: these forms of tenancy are well understood, are governed by ample precedent, and lower the likelihood of costly disputes. Other forms of tenancy have mostly fallen into disuse because they grant too many hostages to fortune, and result in large transfers of wealth from all of us to the legal profession! Dispute avoidance is, IMHO, the primary desideratum in the design and evolution of the law.

Addressing what I say above need not be a high flown academic affair; see, for example, Bethell (1998).

This entry should say more about the law of real property in continental Europe, because that is the main alternative to the common law tradition.

I agree that the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica should NOT be a primary source for this entry.

The discussion of the economic importance of real property is pathetically inadequate, and I will make changes and additions to that section in due course. The "bundle of sticks" metaphor is very apt for real property, which raises the obvious question: what are the sticks from which property rights bundles can be made? I had to address this question in an academic article I recently wrote, and to my amazement, I could not find an adequate answer in the legal or economic literatures, not even in Shavell (2004). So I wrote my own. It's not in print yet, so I cannot cite it. Ellickson (1993) convinced me that land ownership is a fascinating subject in anthropology and sociology, as well as economics. Palnot ( talk) 02:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Very interesting but not really accurate. In England and Wales residential long leaseholds are a very significant form of land ownership. Almost all flat (apartment) ownership is done via residential leasehold rather than any other form of tenure. That's a terrible situation (and I am an expert on it) but that's the way it is, so your generalisation about "industrial societies" is plain wrong. England is an industrial society and has been one longer than any other country (other than perhaps Scotland). I am surprised that commercial leases are as short as you suggest. In my experience (which is fairly wide in my jurisdiction) 5 years would be considered to be rather short. There are many commercial lease granted for longer periods (10-20 years being entirely unexceptionable). One of the big difficulties about legal articles on wikipedia is that most people jump in and write about their own jurisdiction (most commonly a US one) but fail to note that. This makes it impossible for anyone else to come along and merge in their own knowledge of their own jurisdiction. I can't easily write: in the US X holds, but in England and Wales Y holds without being an expert on both. I am making an effort to do so, but there isn't much time for it. Francis Davey ( talk) 14:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd also like to add: real property is not the same thing as the French concept of an immeubles (Bien Immobilie). Both encompass Land as a property right, but they also include and exclude different sets of other rights. The French law of immeubles includes various kinds of animals on land that would be treated as personalty in English law (and I suspect in most common law systems). Francis Davey ( talk) 14:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

This question speaks to the term of heir' property. When a will states specifically that certain parcels of land is left to the grandchildren of a deceased person, does the term heir extend beyond the grandchildren? i.e will the great grandchildren be entitled to the property if the grandchildren did not leave a will? A.R. Emerson 5 February 2009 """" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.231.245 ( talk) 12:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Living persons do not have heirs but only heir apparents. Their heirs being determined upon their death. In the case of land being left under a will the concept of heir deminishes. When a person dies without a will he is said to be intestate and then at least in Ireland the concept of heir becomes of significant relevance.

When the person who has created the will dies the land passes unto the person so nominated by the will. Whether this will pass to that persons children will depend on the estate granted under the original will, the presence and provisions of a subsequent will by the grantee or in the absence of a will, under the rules of intestacy in place in whichever jurisdiction you are in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.26.128 ( talk) 23:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

In common law there is real and personal property. In the law of England and Wales that is the case and intellectual property is a form of personal property. I believe the same is true throughout the non-US common law world. I have therefore edited the lead to return it to the two class system. If someone has a reference for the US being different (I wasn't aware it was) then they can make a note that in the US there are three fundamental classes and reference it. Francis Davey ( talk) 10:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Although the lead says that 'real property' is a common law term (cf. the discussion in the first section of this talk page), there are still some problems with international issues:

• the 'Jurisdictional peculiarities' section starts with the remark, "In the law of almost every country, the state is the ultimate owner of all land under its jurisdiction". I wonder how 'every country' can be interpreted otherwise than as 'every country in the world'. The words 'common law' should probably be added.
• the second paragraph of the lead says that, "in countries with personal ownership of real property, civil law protects the status of real property in real-estate markets". Civil law here is linked to Civil law (legal system), but that is about a system as described in comparative law studies; I think the appropriate link would be the article with the awkward name Civil law (Civil law).
• although there are differences, there is of course also considerable overlap between 'immobile property' in civil (or continental) law systems and 'real property'. The former seems to be described nowhere on this Wikipedia. But the second paragraph of the lead is sort of a starter. A general description of the subject would be welcome. By the way, this article is connected with the Immobilier article on the French Wikipedia. The Italian and Portuguese articles are more about the economic real estate business. Bever ( talk) 03:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC) reply

If there is an article covering immovable property (land and buildings, fruits) in the civil law tradition, I cannot find it.

Of course, the difficulty is that concepts from civil law legal systems don't always have English terms, because there isn't much overlap between civil law countries and English-speaking countries. Real estate or real property could sensibly be the general article that discusses all forms, worldwide, of ownership/control of land/immovables; or the page "(law of) immovable property" could be turned into an article about civil law jurisdictions (since it seems like a close approximation of immobilier (French) and Immobiliarsachenrecht (German for the law of immovable tangible objects). Maybe there's a Roman term that could serve?

In any case, it should be made clear that "real property" refers to the common law concept (and not just in English common law, I don't think, contrary to what the first sentence says).
Real estate and real property could also use a discussion about scope. Sure, "real estate" is probably the better article to discuss the business aspects, since it's the common term in that respect, where "real property" isn't. But I think it is also the legal term; just a synonym for real property. Am I mistaken?

What does everyone think?

§§ LegFun §§ talk §§ 19:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply