Land Law

LAND AND LAW
By (Name)
Course
Tutor
Institution
City and State
Date
Land and Law
Land law is the section of the act that majors on the issue of the right to utilize, alienate or keep out others from the earth. In the usual course of events, the asset is called real estate. One of the critical issues of the law is the issue of land use agreements (Brunswicker, 2014, p. 771). Almost every jurisdiction has a way of handling issues pertaining land and law. In the land laws, we have the land rights. They are a major section of the rule. They usually address the legal mandates for owning land and the social acceptance of having the area. The article is going to discuss the challenges that the mortgagee faces when such a situation arises.
In the land laws, we have the issue of mortgage laws. A mortgage can be alleged to be an asylum benefit where the lender cleaves to it in the same way as self-assurance for dues. In most cases, the debt is always money obtained as a loan from the financial institutions. The mortgage is not a debt. What is constitutive to a deficit the lender’s security? The lender’s collateral can be understood as the transfer of an advantage in the land to the mortgage loaner from the possessor. The mortgage market in the United Kingdom is mainly aggressive and innovative in the entire globe. In the country, most of the funding when it comes to mortgages are funded by either proprietary lenders like banks and mutual organizations like credit unions and building societies.

For the last couple of years, there was minimal intervention by the state in the market, although this had changed when Northern Rock bank was nationalized. Since the year 1982, the market was deregulated; there were some substantial diversification and innovation of strategies that were employed by the lenders to attract borrowers. This has led to the creation of different types of mortgages. In the United Kingdom the more you deposit money, your mortgage rate will be lower because the bank will be lending the specific smaller amount of cash, therefore, putting less of its cash at risk.
The standard method that can be utilized in purchasing of real estate is a mortgage. In such circumstances, there is no essence of disbursing the full value unswervingly out of their wherewithal. Various parties are involved in the mortgage owning. The first side is the lender or the mortgagee. A mortgagee is a person usually an investor who lends out cash secured by a mortgage in real estate. Many at times, most mortgage lenders do seal their loans by writing on the secondary mortgage market. The lenders are the ones who usually earn the revenue referred to as service release premium (Chesbrough, 2016).
Another participant is the borrower or the mortgagor. A mortgagor is a person who has borrowed a mortgage and is expected to pay back after a specified period. The person is usually required to meet the conditions that have been placed by the mortgagee regarding loan and other orders of redeeming a mortgage. Failure of the mortgagor to meet those requirements, the mortgagee any be forced to take actions that will allow him to recover the outstanding loan. Other participants are an attorney, mortgage broker, and financial advisors.
Erosion of Rights of the Mortgagee
One of the ways the rights of the mortgagee have been eroded through given the mortgagor the right to redeem. The issue of the right to redeem is an issue of contract when it comes to matters of law. The mortgagor has the power to redeem the mortgage depending on the date that they agreed in the mortgage agreement. If the let out is to trade in at a specific time, then the mortgagor has the supremacy to buy back it at that moment in time. That has reduced the strength of the mortgagee in various ways (Cath, 2012, p. 11). That is because primarily the borrower is the solitary who has the aptitude of redeeming the mortgage. Then there is no way the mortgagor can be resolute on repossessing the mortgage. It has to be on the contractual appointment.
The mortgagor has a right to equity. Equity is good and should be considered in all the sectors of the economy. However, this freedom has eroded the rights of the mortgagee in various ways when the borrower is unable to fulfill the payment agreement. The mortgage agreement is supposed to provide the security to the mortgagee for the loan. However, the issue of equity came and contradicted the argument. When advancement and any interest have been repaid, then the mortgagee should not object redemption. Initially, the effect of fairness was only meaningful when there was an issue of fraud. The right came and rationalized everything, and thus all cases can be redeemed. Currently, the mortgagor has the power to redeem the mortgage even if the date that they had agreed to the mortgage agreement for repayment has already passed. In such a case, the powers of the mortgagee have been seriously interfered with (Fu, 2012, p. 513). That is because in the past they would take drastic action when the date that they agreed has passed, but now they are unable as the right to equity protects the mortgagor. The issue of fraud has also been on the rise because of the situation as the agreed date can pass, and they are not allowed to take any form of action. Most mortgagors have become relentless in making their payment on the required period because of the situation.
Installment mortgages are a perfect and helpful right that was given to the mortgagors. They can pay the mortgage at a slower and agreed date with the mortgagee. In the past, it was required for one to be ready and then spend the mortgage at once. It was beneficial to the mortgagee because their work had been simplified and it was less stressful. However, the power of the mortgagors to pay for a mortgage in installments has made things very hard for the mortgagees. The mortgagees have to leave in the hope that the lease will have the capacity to pay the mortgage for all those agreed years. Though no one can predict the future. There is time when the mortgagor may be losing his job, and now he is unable to pay the mortgage anymore (Rothschild, 2016, p 217). That puts the mortgagee in a catchy situation because they have followed the mortgage agreement. However, with the rights that the mortgagors have they can go and redeem the property. At that time, the mortgagee is now the ones that lose in that situation because of issues such as depreciation. Moreover, the mortgagors also have the right of equity thus it will regulate that rigor process.
The mortgagor has the statutory power of redemption. The power is called the equity of redemption. The right dramatically interferes with the powers of the mortgagees when the mortgagor fails to meet the set standards of the mortgage agreement. When the mortgage is made the mortgagee is the one who becomes the legal owner of the property. Therefore, the mortgagor is just a subject to the equitable interest. Accordingly, the impartiality of emancipation can be dealt merely reminiscent of any other equal interest. That means that the mortgagor is not the one who owns the property even if he is leaving there. It will only be its property only when he is done paying the agreed installments. Thus that means that when he is unable to pay the agreed payments after the agreed time, he can seek redemption. That means that the mortgagee will have to look for money and redeem it back to the mortgagor. That is a loss to the mortgagor because the house will have depreciated among other factors. Moreover, it has eroded their rights thus doing the business to be risky to invest in.
The mortgagors have the upper hand when it comes to matters of court because of their right to sue. The customer is always right. That power has had a negative impact on the strength of the mortgagees. Despite the fact that the mortgage is at a halt of the prerogative of the mortgagor, the mortgagor can still prosecute the mortgagee (Gassmann, 2010, p 215). When some difficulties arise, the mortgagor might decide to take some legal advice which usually ends up being costly on the side of the mortgagee despite the fact that he is still entitled to the building. That makes the mortgagee emerge as a minus dependable person than the mortgagor notwithstanding is the owner of the business. Therefore, the chances of them taking action in case of something occurring are very minimal as compared to the opportunities of the mortgagor to take effect in evidence of anything.
The mortgagees have also been compelled to make some developments on the property. When events are supposed to be made, the mortgagee has no option other than to ensure that he has done them. That denotes that the mortgagee is the one who will remove his finance to fund the development process. The mortgagor has not anything to do with the reimbursement unless under certified stipulations. The mortgagor can only pay the mortgage for development when the property was going to be destructed, or security was going to be insufficient thus preserving it. Also, he can contribute when they property was made under the lawful orders of the public servant. Other than that, the mortgagor is the one who is predestined to watch over the advancement of the mortgage. That is not supposed to be the case because, despite the factor that the mortgagee is the owner, the structure has already been subject to the mortgagor. Thus the mortgagor is the one who is supposed to carry all the cost.
The mortgagee rights have been eroded by giving the mortgagor the power to possess the mortgage deed. In the instance that the mortgagor wants the act and all the other documents relating to it he has the potential to request for it and posses it. That is very tricky as it now puts the mortgagee in a lesser position to control his property because of lack of the documents. That might see the mortgagor even interfering with various issues in the record.
The issues of the mortgagor can lease the power also dramatically affects the rights of the mortgagee. The mortgagor can charter the possessions under section ninety-nine of the Law of Property Act 1925. A lease is an agreement where the lessee can pay the lesser so that he can utilize the commodity. Therefore, that the mortgagor can allow one to use the mortgage despite the fact that it is still under the entitlement of the mortgagee. The mortgagor starts to earn from a commodity that it is not yet his. That is not right under normal conditions.
One of the examples where the power of the mortgagee has been eroded in favor of the mortgagor is the case between the Halifax Building Society and Clark. In this situation, the mortgage deed had a clause stating that all the debt should be due by default. As a result, the mortgagor had to have the capacity to provide the means to repay the whole loan (Oh, 2011, p. 306). That was different from the other clause as the other only require one to show how to repay the arrears. That led to the amendment of Administration of Justice Act (AJA) 1973. The change said that the court is supposed to treat any sums due as the money the mortgage would have received when trying to pass judgment.
Another case is the situation of the Cheltenham and Gloucester BS v Morgan. In the case, it was agreed that the when determining a reasonable period then it is good to take into account the remaining part of the mortgage. Therefore, the issue of paying the arrears within a short period of a year or two was done away with. Thus, the court always considers the reasonable period which is defined as the remaining part of the original term of the mortgage. That has given the mortgagors the power to present to the court the detailed budget indicate the amount that he should be added to be able to pay the remaining amount (Mellahi, 2010). Thus the court n reschedule the payment period. That has made it incredibly complicated for the mortgagees to run their business efficiently due payments by the mortgagors.
In conclusion, the majority of the civil liberties that have been bestowed to the mortgagors are excellent and substantial. However, they negatively impact the powers of the mortgagees in various ways. Despite the fact that they are meaningful, the mortgagors are not supposed to take advantage of those legal capabilities that they have been mandated with. That is because; it can slow down the growth and prosperity of the mortgagees. It is out of the payments of the mortgagors that the mortgagees use to develop themselves. To people, in the United Kingdom, the mortgage market is well developed. It is overwhelming when it comes to choosing the different mortgage choices, therefore; the most important thing is to know how each mortgage works then make the correct decision. It’s kind also to know that many different products are available to buyers only in specific situations. For example, first-time buyers may not be included in some offers like those who are regular buyers.
Reference
Brunswicker, S., 2014.Elements of Land Law. Oxford University Press. 5th ed, p771.
Chesbrough, H., 2016. Mortgage Arrears: Journal of International Banking and Financial Law: Oxford University Press.
Cath, M., 2012. Secure Land Rights: learning matters. Development and Learning in Organizations, 26(5), 9–13.
Fu, X., 2012. Housing and Property Restitution. Research Policy, 41(3), 512–523.
Gassmann, O., 2010. The future of Land Industry. R&D Management, 40(3), 213–221.
Mellahi, K., 2010. Landing strategies of people: internationalisation entry mode. International Land Review, 27(3).
Oh, K., 2011. Test of the Mortgage Law Application.United Kingdom Land Review, 16(3), pp.302-312.
Rothschild, E., 2016. A Divergence Hypothesis. Journal of Land Law Development, 23(2), pp.205-226.