Analyze Supreme case of County Wayne vs Hathcock Essay

Analyze Supreme case of County Wayne vs Hathcock - Essay Example The only blight came with a small but significant percentage of landowners who refused to sell their lands voluntarily. For practicality reasons, this land could NOT be excluded from the noble project. This not only gave birth to the tussles between Wayne County and Hathock but also an interesting and applicable case to any urban planner and specifically a Michigan urban planner. Adopting a resolution of necessity and a declaration of taking the property (almost forcefully), Wayne County started condemnation procedures under the justification that thee land in question was to have more public benefits, in the long run, in its hands than in the aboriginal owners. The owners, on the other hand, felt that if the county was awarded eminent domain, which it did, it would be a constitutional breach. It is crucial to note that the Michigan Supreme Court had in 1981 used the case of public domain in a case Poletown Neighborhood Council v Detroit present on the same economic reasons as Wayne County’s. Article 10, section 2 of the Michigan constitution states that â€Å"private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Property may only be taken if it is for a public purpose and if just compensation is provided.† An interesting debate on what exactly can be termed as public use ensued, with the term generating different ideas. For the land to meet the public test threshold and condemned property acquired by a private investor, the court set up 3 criterions. Public necessity was evident, the property remained very much subject to public control after transfer and that the reason for choosing the land did nothing but serve the public good. The court however failed to decipher any of the above exceptions applicable to Pinnacle Project. The Wayne v. Hathock opened other chapter to any planner’s mind: what if the land itself was the case of public

Land Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 1

Land Law - Essay Example Therefore, it is important to now that Under (Law of Property Act 1925 s 199(1)(ii)(a)), the occupant(s) of the property have major interests ‘since it is implicit in Williams & Glyn’s Bank v Boland [1981] AC 487, Midland Bank v Dobson [1986] 1 FLR 171 and Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] 1 AC 107 that the beneficial interest (of the third parties) under this trust precedes the court order’ (Milney, 1997). It is an important consideration that belief involved in proprietary estoppel cases can be in any rights in and over the property. Tom, another third party, through a properly executed deed, was given exclusive possession over a cottage in the property for a period of six years. In simpler words, the said cottage was given on lease to Tom by the sole registered owner, Simon. The deed is a legal contact between the two parties with specified terms and conditions. The contractual obligations are legally binding on the two parties. When the property is transferred or sold to another person, the liabilities and other encumbrances, unless discounted, are also carried forward, without affecting the rights of the people, especially those who are leased part of the property through proper legal deals. According to LRA 2002(c.9) Section 12(8), ‘registration with possessory title has the same effect as registration with absolute title, except that it does not affect the enforcement of any estate, right or interest adverse to, or in derogation of, the proprietor’s title subsisting at the time of registration or then capable of arising’ (www.opsi.gov.uk). Simon had also given right of way over his driveway to his neighbour Nora, for ‘as long as you live’. This law of easement primarily provides a right to use a piece of land by the neighbours for performing specific functions. The most popular easement is ‘right to