Between the torrens system, title insurance, and the internet (to eventually provide public access to MLS), I can see lawyers, surveyors and real estate agents eventually being eased out of much of the residential real estate trade.
I am in a region that uses both the old and new systems, but even for folks who are both under the new system and who are also are in new planned communities, I still recommend title insurance, for there is still a lot that can bugger up title that will not be caught at the registry office. For example, for First Canadian Title in 2003, 34% of claims were municipal issues (e.g. bylaw problems), and 29% were fraud and forgery matters.
Where I am, there is nothing to prevent a lawyer from having an owneship intest in a title insurance company, but there are severe sanctions for profiting from it.
In fact, the law society in my province owns a title insuarance company so as to be sure that the problems that have arisen in the USA do not migrate here. But guess what. If I push uneeded policies on my clients, then I lose my ticket. If I get a cut, I lose my ticket. Here are the specific regulations which I must follow:
Another thing about the legal system: it is a situation where the lawyers write the laws, using the most complicated laguage possible. Ostensibly, this is to cover all contingincies…but it winds up confusing the issues. This is why we have senators voting on bills that none of them have read! There comes a certain point where all of that fine print/legallingo ceases to have any meaning…and in a contract, the use of excessively obscure language brings up the possibility of “undue influence”. So, the very act of making a contract complicated brings up the chance of breaking it! More legal work!
Example: yopu know that a ceratin patch of land is owned by a certain native american (who is illiterate and has a drinking problem). You prevail upon this chap to sign a legal agreement with you, to jointly exploit the oil deposit. He fails to notice in the fine print that “the party of the second part will lose all anticipated income from the partnership should he fail to notify the party of the first part that he (the party of the second part) fails to exercise his right to deny…blah…blah…blah…”.
So the native amaerican goes to a lawyer, who brings a lawsuit against you, for tricking him into agreeing to a grossley unfair contractual agrement.
More litigation!
Some folks need more than legal help with their problems.
Non est factum.
Could have been avoided if he had hired a lawyer, and could be remedied if he hires a lawyer.
Your point seems to be that using simpler, less complex, everyday language would lead to less potential for interpretive abuse. I think you’ve got it flipped around. Simpler language is generally far more open ended and subject to interpretation than legally precise (and more complex) language. Have you. personally, ever written a contract or complex multi-party agreement of any kind, where you had to nail down and anticipate all the various real world issues that might arise between contending parties. Why don’t you give it a shot.
Lawyers may indeed make things more complex than necessary if you’re dealing with parties of sterling character, who always act in good faith, speak in clear and delcarative sentences, and would never try to take unfair advantage of others, but just on the off chance that you’re dealing with someone who does not necessarily have your best interests in mind, a legally precise understanding is going to stand up better in court than simpler and more open ended language.
I just have a feeling that LSUC would say that this was over the line…
:eek:
Thank you very much for the numbers, Muffin. I’m going to make a report today.
I really appreciate it.
Elret, as a lawyer, thank you for being willing to go through the hassle of complaining. Hopefully, the situations will be fully investigated and you will be satisfied with the outcomes. A self-regulating profession like the law depends on people making complaints, and if these guys are crooked, or even just negligent, I don’t want them practicing law and giving it a bad name.
As Muffin said, could’ve been avoided had the Native American sought legal representation before signing a legal document, especially pertaining to something as important as use of an oil deposit on their land.
As someone on the first page mentioned, lawyers are human and as such, are subject to the full spectrum of human tendencies. There are good lawyers and bad lawyers just like there are good doctors and bad doctors. To believe otherwise is to be dangerously naiive.
And unlike a doctor, a lawyer probably won’t shove a finger up you ass.
Way back in 1978, an attempt was made by the Mashpee “indian” “tribe” , assisted by two legal vultures, to take over the Town of Mashpee (Cape Cod, MA). Basically, the lawyers asserted that ALL land titles in the town were invalid, as the land belonged to this indian “tribe”. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, who ruled the claim invalid (they said that the Mashpee Indians hadn’t been a tribe since 1800 or so), so the claim was invalid.
What these two sharpies tried to do was basically STEAL all of the property in town…and NONE of the title insurance companies had anywhere near the assets necessary to pay all potential claims! Now, I will leave it to YOU to judge the ethics (or lack of ethics) of the two lawyers involved…but for the space of 5 years, they made it impossible to buy , sell, or develop any property in the Town of Mashpee.
Servants of the people, indeed! :wally
Well, maybe not a finger, but I have heard some pretty horrifying stories about other body parts…nevermind. I don’t have a cite for it.
So, Ralph, what you are saying is that the title insurance was able to fully meet all actual claims, and that you are opposed to the right of first peoples to have their day in court to make land claims for traditional lands.