#real property law

[boozybadgeresq]

If you think law can’t be kinky, remember that in your first year of law school you discuss “dominant estates” and “servient estates” in detail and repeatedly.

[eggshell-skull-rule]

A lot of real life experience for my real property topic and my broader contracts knowledge.

En re the Tenancy Which Isn't Ending in our new house: I had relied on terms in the sales contract creating an obligation to give us vacant possession at settlement. The contract says vacant possession subject to tenancy, there is a clause in the vendor's statement that the lease will be discharged prior to settlement. The conveyancer said they don't apply and I don't understand why.

I am the silent partner to all of these dealings. I work part- time and have no savings, we are not married, and no bank is going to give me a mortgage. When we inspected the house I was a friend giving my opinion. On the mortgage application Hemlig is single (don't worry, don't worry, we will get married and my interest will be registered on the title when everyone looks away), so I haven't spoken to anyone through the process.

I draft emails, I write notes for Hemlig to reference during phone calls, I was beside him when the agent pushed him to sign that contract when she hadn't changed the finance deadline's date (can you imagine?! after that we should have expected more fuckery) and I shook my head when I heard him about to capitulate to her. I am not officially present but I am all over it, textbook in hand.

Both for our practical affairs and my education, I really want Hemlig to ask the conveyancer some questions. Why did these clauses not create an obligation to discharge the tenancy? I've read the contract and the statements and the folio extracts twice and I cannot find anything which seems to counteract or displace them. Why is this not a breach of contract issue?

[sir-fluffbutts]

Many artists hate AI

Why? I did not get it from your latest ask

Because its meant that it will get artists "Job" or why?

Sorry if you dont wann talk about it

i thought i should talk about it someday so here we are

----------------------

its not just about "AI will steal artists jobs", the advance of technology means it'll happen with everything someday.

im against AI because of how they do it

-------------

the way AI image generation works is

gather as much data (in this case, images) from a original sorce (aka "training")

when the prompt is written, the AI use the data it collected to create whatever prompt its given

but the thing is, the original data sorce (aka artists who draw the art AI used to "train") usually don't know or agreed with their art being used to train AI

and most AI "artists" don't openly tell people that their "art" is created with AI. which is the reason why "AI that creates fake timelapes and layers for AI art" is a thing now

so while the programers of the said AI and the ones who uses it to sell their "art" gains profit, the ones who've been extorted (aka the artists whos art was used to train the AI without their permission) don't get SHIT

---------

think it like this.

you own a pasta shop where a dish is 5$ . its not much but making pasta and watching people enjoy it is your passion, and it pays the bills that helps you keep going

one day, someone walks in, grabs every dish you made and walks out without paying or even asking

then, they dump everything into a big pot that can magicaly copy everything in it, stur it a few times and start to serve it to other people claiming they "made" it cause they used their pot to "cook" it

not just that, they start to sell it for 2$ per dish and wrote a whole book about "how to make delicious pasta FAST". and when the "big pot is bad" movement started, they quickly say "but i DIDN'T used the pot, its all made from my OWN SKILL"

so while the company that produces the "muliply big pot" and people who serves from it gains profit , you, the original cook don't get anything from all out of this

--------------

i agree that AI is just a tool, however, unless theres a forced rule that

• protects / pays the original artists properly

• have AI "art" to be clearly labled as one

then i, alongside with many artists will continue to be heavily against the use of the tool.

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

Lawyering through fandoms: Joint tenancies

Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle, at some point in the future, get married and purchased this new property as joint tenants (let’s call it “Wayne-Kyle Manor”). During a fight with the Joker, Bruce is fatally stabbed by Harley Quinn. Perhaps the DC writers wanted to subvert our expectations in this storyline.

Anyways, Bruce dies. But before he died, he devised a will which states that upon his death, his interest in Wayne-Kyle Manor goes to his son, Damian Wayne. Damian is about to formally accept the new property until he’s told by Selina Kyle that the will won’t hold up in court.

“What do you mean!?” shouts Damian. Selina apologizes and says that she’s actually the sole owner of Wayne-Kyle Manor now.

Damian is about to throw a tantrum when Alfred tells him that because Bruce and Selina owned the Manor as joint tenants, there was a right of survivorship. When one joint tenant dies, their ownership interest of the property immediately passes on to the surviving joint tenant (which would be Selina). Even though Bruce left a will, it won’t be upheld in court.

In response, Damian decides to go out and beat up a few thugs in anger.

[hexacasts]

I need to write fixit fic not in the sense of "something sad happened in canon and i want to make everyone happy instead" but rather "the situation we're told is a happy ending is actually an unethical hypercapitalist nightmare and i need to get everybody OUT OF THERE"

[spitblaze]

i like to think the real mark of being an ex kids-next-door agent as an adult is that you become a strong advocate for children's rights and issues

[nando161mando]

Who can spot the REAL criminals in this exchange..?

[oldpotatoe]

Oops i slipped and fell and read flwogb for the thousandth time :)))) praying to the Gods for more <3 no pressure <3

buddy you should get that checked out [ba dum tiss]

no but in all seriousness. i am 7 months into a career that pretty much consumes most hours of my working day, and on weekends i slump in bed and watch netflix because i am turning into an old hermit-- no wait, an old potato

ye gods i am living up to my username in the worst possible way

anyway i wish i could say that i can see things changing but frankly my workload only increases with every new day :( but i'm getting a severe writing itch that will end up being scratched at some point soon [she says through gritted teeth as she gets yet another notification on her work phone, resisting the urge to hurl it into the wall]

[eretzyisrael]

“Few places in Jerusalem speak of the larger conflict being waged over the city more than the apartment of 68-year-old Nora Ghaith-Sub Laban,” avers the Associated Press’ Isabel DeBre today (“As a lengthy legal battle ends, a Palestinian family braces for eviction from Jerusalem home“).

Whether or not that is true, what is plainly apparent is that the Associated Press’ repeated failure to accurately cover the Sub Laban story speaks of a larger problem plaguing media coverage of Israeli-Palestinian affairs.

In 2015, the leading news service depicted the Sub Laban’s real estate saga as a story of Israeli dispossession and displacement of Palestinians. “They (Israelis) are trying to uproot us from Jerusalem, they are stealing the houses, the trees and the stones of the city,” AP’s Karin Laub and Mohammed Daraghmeh quoted Nora Sub Laban at the time.

Initially, the 2015 article did not contain a single word about the family’s failure to return to the rented home following lengthy renovations completed in 2001, an absence which jeopardized their status as “protected tenants.” Only after CAMERA contacted editors did AP add a paragraph about the court’s critical finding that the family did not reside in the home for years after 2001, which was the determining factor in the court’s ruling against the Sub Labans’ claim.

At the time, research by CAMERA’s Gideon Shaviv revealed:

The magistrate court (34656-11-10) in a decision upheld by the district court (28083-12-14) found that the family had not returned to the apartment in 2001. According to the court from 2001-2010 (when the property was transferred to the trust) the family did not live in the apartment. From 2010 until 2014, they had only “pretended” to live in the apartment. This decision was based on the following evidence: Additionally, a private investigator testified that he had interviewed neighbors and none of them knew the Sub-Labans. The court found in 2014 that the Sub-Labans have been living with their extended family in another apartment for 30 years, since 1984. The article references the period of 1984 to 2001, stating “Throughout this period, the family rented an apartment elsewhere in the city.” But it does not mention that the family continued to live elsewhere for more than a dozen additional years.

A significant CAMERA-prompted 2016 New York Times editor’s note addressing, in part, the Sub Laban case, stated:

In response to 2015 communication from CAMERA, AP added the following information, buried deep in the 22nd and 23rd paragraphs:

Last year, a magistrate court approved the eviction order. The court’s decision was based on a finding that the apartment had remained empty between 2001 and 2010, saying there was little to no use of water or electricity during that time. The family says the ruling relied heavily on settler testimony, and that it lived in the building throughout the period. Sub-Laban said the home was empty at times because he and his siblings went to university in Jordan and their parents would come to visit, but that otherwise the house was in constant use and the family paid rent. He said there were problems with utilities and that they sometimes had to rely on a neighbor to get water.

Yet even this moderate improvement ignores the fact that the court’s finding about the empty apartment applied not only from 2001 to 2010, but also to the period of 2010 to 2014, when the family was found to have fraudulently staged their residence. The family’s response that the court “relied heavily on settler testimony” does not address the fact that they failed to bring any witnesses to testify on their behalf.

Fast forward to today’s coverage, which completely ignores even the incomplete information about the court’s findings regarding the more limited 2001 to 2010 absence. Signaling deteriorating coverage, DeBre now maintains: “As Muslims of the same Muslim Quarter apartment for seven decades, Nora’s family gained the status of protected tenants, putting Israeli law on their side.”

Ignoring the already underreported absence of 2001 to 2010 which AP belatedly cited in 2015, today AP now notes only trips abroad in 2019, stating: 

Most recently, the Kollel Galicia endowment argued in 2019 that Nora’s absence form her house that year could clear the way for their eviction. Nor said the house was empty at times in 2019 because she was hospitalized with a back injury and later recovered in the houses of her adult children, whom Israeli authorities had previously expelled from the Old City apartment.

In a separate reprise of AP’s substantive shortcomings in 2015 coverage, DeBre’s article errs:

“It’s Jewish property and they want it back,” [Arieh King] said. “The (Ghaith-Sub Labans) don’t have any right to this property.” There is no equivalent right in Israel for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who fled or were forced from their homes during the war surrounding Israel’s establishment to return to lost properties.

First, DeBre is falsely invoking the Israeli Property Law. Since the Sub Labans did not own the property in question, even by their own admission, the Israeli Property Law, which is relevant only in cases of ownership, is completely irrelevant to the Sub Labans’ case.

Second, the claim about disparity in reclaiming property rights is completely disingenuous. Jews who, in 1948, lost their land now under Palestinian control equally have no right to return to their lost properties. For instance, as CAMERA’s colleague Alex Safian has noted, the Dheisheh refugee camp is built on Jewish-owned land and the original Jewish owners have no hope of returning to their lost property.

Moreover, if AP is interested in probing disparity in property rights, it should examine how Palestinian Arabs who lost land in Israel’s establishment in 1948 are entitled to compensation, while no such consideration was ever extended to the 850,000 Jews who fled or were forced out of Arab lands, leaving behind all of their property, businesses and assets.

[prettymunchkin]

Redevelopment in Pune by SK Fortune Developers faces challenges like aging infrastructure, limited land, regulatory hurdles, tenant displacement, environmental impact, traffic congestion, and financial viability. Solutions include infrastructure upgrades via public-private partnerships, high-density mixed-use development, streamlined regulatory processes, fair tenant relocation, green building practices, transit-oriented development, and innovative financing mechanisms. SK Fortune Developers adopts a collaborative approach with government and communities to promote sustainable urban revitalization, aiming to create a more livable, resilient, and inclusive city.

[eggshell-skull-rule]

Understanding a lot of real estate law in theory but not in practice.

Urging my love to contact the conveyancer to ask about lodging a caveat with Land Titles SA (whether they already have or if they advise him to). Our house is still up for sale on multiple websites.

Here's where the law gets strange and sticky folks. A deposit and a contract are only an equitable interest in the property until title is registered. Registration is indefeasible title, though you will of course have an in personam right against the seller for your deposit.

It cannot be registered until after settlement, the day that ownership is transferred. In the meantime someone else could very much buy our house and possibly register it first. So you lodge a caveat to prevent all further dealings. I'm not even being paranoid, there is a lot of case law about people selling the same house to multiple people. Especially when we bought the house for less than its advertised worth and it's still up for sale.

First come, first served does stand (qui prior est tempore potior est jure) as long as you don't do any "displacing" or "postponing" conduct. And all the case law seems to disagree based on circumstance whether failing to lodge a caveat is postponing conduct (the fuck?).

...ah, update, I believe the bank put one in that they received a deposit. Splendid.

We sure live in a system.

[charmac]

about the copyright stuff.. do you think if someone gave complete legal consent for approval of use in an episode (with legal documents giving them permission/ ownership of the material) do you think they could use fanfic/au ideas then? wouldn’t that work around the copyright protections or is that not possible because even then if the person tried to sue or wanted to they couldn’t since it would be in their ownership (rcg) technically.

I don't know enough about the intricacies of copyright and intellectual property law to really say I'm giving you a professional answer, but if a contract was involved relinquishing ownership and/or claims, I'm pretty sure, yes.

In all honestly, I would go as so far as to say just a blanket statement that you relinquish all your right, title, and interest to any original plot, ideas, and/or dialogue in your story would do it. Similar to how some studios or writers have had contests or promotional things fans can submit their fan works to, if you tick a box and say you read and agree to the terms and conditions (normally being you relinquish your right to any monetary claims if they use your work), that's all there is to it. So yeah, if RCG wanted to do some kind of "fan written" or fan-contributed episode they absolutely could.

Just to restate: the refusal of creators and writers engaging with fanfiction due to copyright issues is really when it's put upon them: a fan hands them something or DMs them. That, they basically straight up know/are trained to refuse and not to engage with. When it comes to something more organic, like imagining a creator looking through Ao3 or ff.net, the extremely low likelihood that they are going to do that is because they know it is a very murky area they can easily dupe or hurt themselves walking into. They're supposed to actively avoid it, and most do, but if you want to think (or even strongly believe) your guy is browsing fics when he's bored as hell flying back and forth from LA to Wales multiple times a month, slap a little release on your work, if you want (Sometimes you see release disclaimers on other people's fanfiction. Though a lot of the time it's just a rejection of ownership because people are paranoid they can get in trouble for publishing fanfiction...lmfao).

[asalescommunity]

A real estate business without a basis of a law property can be proven to be based on an organized crime.

Russians and Ukrainians who bought the property using an amount of monies from the organized crime can represent a terror network that is selling narcotics and a weapon without a license.

An administration can qualify such gangs as leads who are qualified for a confiscation of a property.

Entrepreneurs can be qualified for the confiscation of the property, partly, or completely depending on a source of an income.

An author Piotr Sienkiewicz

+48 721 951 799

[giveamadeuschohisownmovie]

I’ve realized that after taking “Property Law” and “Real Estate Transactions” that a career as a real estate attorney is just not in the cards for me. I can explain the different degrees of murder and what constitutes a proper fair use defense, but as soon as I have to deal with mortgages and covenants, my brain goes smooth.

[junewild]

a tiny mystery has taken over my entire brain. if only i could do this about normal things, like blorbos.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

it's not about that you "have" to get to exercise your autonomy. b/c like, yes you do, but not in the way that "if i don't get to do that Now i will explode & evaporate (& die)" which is what people keep leveraging to be like "so you don't have any valid argument for getting to act out your own choices"

therein is another issue of "why do you need a 'valid argument' to get Exceptions as ruled by this person to exist autonomously, unpunished" like why's this person an authority who gets to punish you. nonrhetorically, why do you have to appeal to their maybe possibly deciding to Let you be a person. should you "have" to.

and if you don't get that Permission that you supposedly "have" to get, you also will not immediately explode and die if you do that unpermitted thing, but shocking how "you don't Haaaave to" is only invoked re: things you want to do for yourself, and not what they want you to do for them....because it's Not Really About "Literally literally Haaaaving to"

the alignment between people getting on one for years about asexuality, and while doing so maxing out the saturation on their bullshit on any & everything, b/c you're just getting into anti autonomy, so ofc you're also just stoking & expressing "arguments" against autonomy that are deployed in plenty of other contexts, including against other queer identities....and that particular resonance with biphobia & transphobia, and how either groups are theoretically thwarting the Truest Gays because how will we have a valid argument against the truest cishets agenda if we can't convince them we haaaaaave to be like this instead of that no, we won't explode & die if we have to be repressed or at least closeted another day, and another, and you won't explode after another, either, etc. rather than thee point of "asexuality autonomy = queer autonomy = Your queer autonomy = Anyone's Autonomy" and "why do we 'have' to Convince anyone to go 'oh alriiiight' abt one's choices about how they express their identity, what decisions they make about having sex"....it's about anyone having the power to preclude & restrict others' autonomy & constrain their existence between one kind of more imminent, immediate harm/death & a more drawn out one where you exist as a resource for others' use but at least you aren't Literally dead today. so what if someone's saying "well i don't think your gender/sexuality stuff is Real" so long as they can't get in the way of other people living that out anyways. so what if someone's supposedly like "well, but everyone could be bi" (which they don't. just like ppl were never 'pretending' to be asexual to nefariously stand around in the queer space that never rigorously vetted everyone anyways? Making Up A Guy To Get Mad At) to supposedly argue that if all of you are bi you can just restrict yourself to the Cishet Appearing manifestations (which they don't) where what's that even matter if this [guy to get mad at] can't make that anyone else's problem? if he can, why can he. should he be able to. that's the problem, not "have we all tried the constant biphobia wherein they're always thwarting & sabotaging the rest of us?? like how trans people are keeping us from being legitimate?? with the opportunity for some trans people to also try declaring other noncis people Not Legitimately Trans?? well the cishet agenda loves asexuals, actually, they want everyone to never have sex ever (they don't want that, and that's not what being asexual is)"

using the "you can't Know through Direct Perception or extrasensory phenomena what someone else's Thoughts And Feelings are" both ways; wherein their assertion of their intentions, true or not, gets to be treated as an assertion of Reality, meanwhile b/c Your intentions/thoughts/feelings can't be directly observed, you're just lying or exaggerating or misremembering or failing to Express yourself correctly b/c they would've surely interpreted it correctly otherwise, or [anything else] re: your inner experiences that you can't "prove" are one way or another, so this other person gets to always decide for themself what they must be (why?) and if they just so happen to decide they Must be in alignment with what they want (good) or unacceptably, evilly, incorrectly Against Them, they also get to flex their control over the entire situation via their Authority / control over resources / the person's lack of other options b/c of isolation & that, say, breaking away from a family, job, marriage or just deemed correctly romantic relationship, is punished by the larger system of How Things Are, through a lack of resources that makes you more vulnerable in general as well as vulnerable to further punishment in how you might try to respond to that situation, through the general stance that maintaining cohesion of a Unit like the nuclear family, the "romantic" "man"/"woman" couple, is good, so breaking from it is deviant........anyways it's like. if you're like "well i'm having sex b/c i want to" and someone is like "well i say YOURE LYING" like, what? "isn't there someone you forgot to ask" shit. why should that get to affect things. whether you're like "oh no. what if they could say 'you're lying...b/c how do i knowwww you're not BI. where you could want to have sex with someone BESIDES this one person rn?? or ACE??? if you Don't have sex rn and you Don't explode and die 5 min later we will Know you Could Be Asexual" like, this isn't how it works anyways obviously but theoretically if it did: we would not be like "oh sorry guess that's what matters" unless what mattered was some people's being lower on a hierarchy and at the quite literal disposal of those with more power than them. what would the crisis be of someone going "well i think. every gay person? is bi" or someone going "you've just told me your name is gloria but i think your name is actually tetris...." or "i'm so embarrassed i wish everyone but me was dead" if none of these things can hinder the existence of people having sex w/autonomy for all involved or people getting to tell you their name or all other people being alive

the banger quote on my imdb page was saying "no, i don't 'Have' to, but i'm going to" to an authoritarian in my life, concluding several minutes' "negotiation" of [i 'have' to hang up on this call now b/c the movie i'm standing in this movie theater to see is about to start. no i won't explode and die if i don't. i also won't explode and die if i don't keep "talking" to you (being Talked At / lectured & upbraided from afar)] funny how that works. i also Know this was a checkmate b/c that person gave up on responding (or, technically, switched to The Silent Treatment, which worked even worse via phone than in person) and i did hang up rather than miss the movie i showed up for and then they had to resort to Other Methods: telling someone willing to take on the enabling cop mode that i had Essentially said Go Fuck Yourself. like well that's right, and the fact that it's a "go fuck yourself" to get to say "i am going to end the call b/c i choose to do something else" and then actually do so is a real testament to this relationship. and if one had said "i can't keep talking, i have to go" and someone's like "sldfj you mean thou MAY not keep talking" teehee i don't know, CAN you have the peas????? it's like this obviously doesn't matter. i can choose to do shit and choose to not do shit without exploding and dying right this very second, except for taking 5 sec to eat a deadly bomb with a timer set for 5 sec. This Is Not The Point. why is autonomy off-limits to Anyone.