A few queries about land

[Davedrave]

I am still slightly unsure about (farm)land ownership and would appreciate some guidance from an expert. I have a few queries:

1) A lease for three lives: if A was the eldest, B younger and C the youngest, the lease would presumably end with the death of C if they lived longest. What if C had a child but C pre-deceased B? Would the lease pass to C’s child or end with the death of B? (The University of Nottingham website info on this has entirely confused me!).

Also, can someone leasing for three lives build a farmhouse, for example, on the land, and would they have the right to remove it at the end of the lease?

2) Was the “landowner” in the 1840’s tithe apportionments the freehold owner?

3) If a testator intends his farm to be passed down the male line “for ever” can I safely assume that he is the freehold owner?

Dave

[Guy Etchells]

I am still slightly unsure about (farm)land ownership and would appreciate some guidance from an expert. I have a few queries:

1) A lease for three lives: if A was the eldest, B younger and C the youngest, the lease would presumably end with the death of C if they lived longest. What if C had a child but C pre-deceased B? Would the lease pass to C’s child or end with the death of B? (The University of Nottingham website info on this has entirely confused me!).

When "A" died B would inherit if he was still alive (or "C" if "B" had died in the meantime) the lease would be renewed for another run of three lives E, F & G, on the death of the first life and so on as long as both sides wished to allow the renewal.

Also, can someone leasing for three lives build a farmhouse, for example, on the land, and would they have the right to remove it at the end of the lease?

That would depend on the terms of the lease they might have to leave it in good condition or they may have to remove all trace of it and reinstate the land as it was.

2) Was the “landowner” in the 1840’s tithe apportionments the freehold owner?

No not always, it was a tax levied to support the church & clergy

3) If a testator intends his farm to be passed down the male line “for ever” can I safely assume that he is the freehold owner?

Dave

No, he is only stating his wishes and this could mean that the people mentioned in the above lives system had to be of his male line. Having said that the most likely scenario is he would be the freeholder of the land.

The problem is land ownership depends on a mishmash of ancient and new laws which may conflict with each other and require a court to resolve.
Cheers
Guy

[Davedrave]

Thanks Guy. In the case of the tithe apportionments I have a farmer who was not a landowner (I know because his grandfather’s will had requested his landlord to favour his son with the continuance of his lease). In this case the landlord is the “Landowner” on the tithe apportionment and the farmer’s grandson is the “Occupier”. It looks as though it could have been a lease for several lives, because the same farm was occupied by father, son, son’s widow, and then their son until he died childless.

In the case of the bachelor farmer (who died in 1820) who left his farm to his nephew specifying that it should pass down the male line, the tithe apportionment has his son’s widow as “Landowner”.

There is an estate map of 1727 which shows a cottage occupied by the family which was still occupied by the same family well into the C20th, so on a lease for lives, I presume.

[josey]

There is an estate map of 1727 which shows a cottage occupied by the family which was still occupied by the same family well into the C20th, so on a lease for lives, I presume.

I assume the  property is in England? Scottish law is different & the cottage could have been held under feu. 

[Davedrave]

Yes, it was in England.

Dave

[horselydown86]

I am still slightly unsure about (farm)land ownership and would appreciate some guidance from an expert. I have a few queries:

1) A lease for three lives: if A was the eldest, B younger and C the youngest, the lease would presumably end with the death of C if they lived longest. What if C had a child but C pre-deceased B? Would the lease pass to C’s child or end with the death of B? (The University of Nottingham website info on this has entirely confused me!).

When "A" died B would inherit if he was still alive (or "C" if "B" had died in the meantime) the lease would be renewed for another run of three lives E, F & G, on the death of the first life and so on as long as both sides wished to allow the renewal.

Cheers
Guy

I can't agree with aspects of the answer given by Guy.

In relation to 1):

There is no link between inheritance and the lives specified in any lease for lives.  The two are entirely unrelated.

The correct answer to 1) is that C's child has nothing to do with the duration of the lease because C's child is not a life specified in the lease.  Therefore, in the situation postulated, the lease would end with the death of B.

If A is the lessee (as was generally the case) then when A died, the lease would pass to the person to whom A bequeathed it in his or her will (or to another person in accordance with the usual rules of inheritance - the residuary legatee, or the administrator of an intestate's estate).

This could be B or C or C's child or another person altogether.  The duration of the lease remains determined by the survival of the remaining specified lives (ie B and C).

Yes, leases were frequently surrendered and renewed to freshen the group of lives but this doesn't alter the status in law of any given lease while it was active.

[Guy Etchells]

I can't agree with aspects of the answer given by Guy.

In relation to 1):

There is no link between inheritance and the lives specified in any lease for lives.  The two are entirely unrelated.

I was using the word inherit as in take over the lease as he/she was the next specified or to put it in more correct terms When “A” died the lease would be surrendered and demised again to another three lives. This would normally include the two remaining lessee but not always.
I did not mention “C’s” child, but that it would run for another three lives “E”, “F” & “G” if it was agreed that “c’s” child was one of the new lessee then he/she would be included.
The point being after each death the lease was  surrendered and demised again.

The correct answer to 1) is that C's child has nothing to do with the duration of the lease because C's child is not a life specified in the lease.  Therefore, in the situation postulated, the lease would end with the death of B.

In earlier times a lease for life was calculated as up to 21 years but as life expectancy improved in the mid 17th century so did the length of the “life” in leases. In 1663 they were between 27 & 33 years. Each new lessee would have to pay a fine to take up the lease but in practice they established “hereditary tenancies” as it was normally beneficial for both the lease owner and lessee. However the way the system worked varied across England with the south and the west tending to favour the rack system rather than the life lease system.
Life leases had an upsurge in the agricultural depression of the 18th century as the lessee had to pay for the upkeep of the buildings and the taxes levied rather than the lease owner (Landlord) as happened under the rack-rent system.

Cheers
Guy

[horselydown86]

I can't agree with aspects of the answer given by Guy.

In relation to 1):

There is no link between inheritance and the lives specified in any lease for lives.  The two are entirely unrelated.

I was using the word inherit as in take over the lease as he/she was the next specified or to put it in more correct terms When “A” died the lease would be surrendered and demised again to another three lives. This would normally include the two remaining lessee but not always.
I did not mention “C’s” child, but that it would run for another three lives “E”, “F” & “G” if it was agreed that “c’s” child was one of the new lessee then he/she would be included.
The point being after each death the lease was  surrendered and demised again.

Guy, the question as I understand it is about Lease by Indenture for Period of Lives as specified in the Indenture.

In this case hereditary tenancies and the rest of your lower response are irrelevant.

You can't say flat out that after each death the lease was  surrendered and demised again.  And you can't say flat out that anybody [took] over the lease as he/she was the next specified.

These things may have happened or they may not, depending on the will of the lessee.

The lives specified in the lease and the ownership of the lease are two different things.

The lives determine the duration and nothing else.  The ownership is determined as it is determined for any asset - it can be sold, given or inherited.

[Guy Etchells]

I can't agree with aspects of the answer given by Guy.

In relation to 1):

There is no link between inheritance and the lives specified in any lease for lives.  The two are entirely unrelated.

I was using the word inherit as in take over the lease as he/she was the next specified or to put it in more correct terms When “A” died the lease would be surrendered and demised again to another three lives. This would normally include the two remaining lessee but not always.
I did not mention “C’s” child, but that it would run for another three lives “E”, “F” & “G” if it was agreed that “c’s” child was one of the new lessee then he/she would be included.
The point being after each death the lease was  surrendered and demised again.

Guy, the question as I understand it is about Lease by Indenture for Period of Lives as specified in the Indenture.

In this case hereditary tenancies and the rest of your lower response are irrelevant.

You can't say flat out that after each death the lease was  surrendered and demised again.  And you can't say flat out that anybody [took] over the lease as he/she was the next specified.

These things may have happened or they may not, depending on the will of the lessee.

The lives specified in the lease and the ownership of the lease are two different things.

The lives determine the duration and nothing else.  The ownership is determined as it is determined for any asset - it can be sold, given or inherited.

It is you who is mentioning ownership of the lease not I and if you look at what I wrote about "hereditary tenancies" i.e. "Each new lessee would have to pay a fine to take up the lease but in practice they established “hereditary tenancies” as it was normally beneficial for both the lease owner and lessee" you will see it is correct.
Cheers
Guy