Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Nemo dat quod non habet, literally meaning "no one can give what they do not have", is a legal rule, sometimes called the nemo dat rule, that states that the purchase of a possession from someone who has no ownership right to it also denies the purchaser any ownership title.
In the context of property law it can be restated as: "In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary, the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is presumed to be the rightful owner. The rightful owner shall have their possession returned to ...
Abandoned property generally becomes the property of whoever should find it and take possession of it first, although some states have enacted statutes under which certain kinds of abandoned property – usually cars, wrecked ships and wrecked aircraft – escheat, meaning that they become the property of the state. [11]
There are a few investment opportunities, but if you're doing so through a real estate purchase, the minimum cost requirement varies by region: Buying a property in the north or northeast of the ...
If I loan the pen to someone, they have only possession. If they fail to give it back, they conceivably could have all three, if I was unable to find them, since it is unlikely it would be possible for me to prove that an inexpensive item such as a pen was borrowed and not returned.
This can occur when you catch a wild animal; or create a new thing, such as a loaf of bread. Secondly, you might find something which someone else has lost. Thirdly, you might take something from another person without their consent. Possession acquired without consent is a property right which the law protects.
Although you can opt to contribute to a government fund, investing in real estate is also an option, with a minimum investment requirement of $200,000 in property. In exchange, you gain ...
The rule against perpetuities serves a number of purposes. First, English courts have long recognized that allowing owners to attach long-lasting contingencies to their property harms the ability of future generations to freely buy and sell the property, since few people would be willing to buy property that had unresolved issues regarding its ownership hanging over it.