Mindel Scott

A Non Domino Legal Meaning

If the application for registration in the previous prescriptive history of titles contains a provision that is not a domino from A to A, the Principal Registrar must consider whether a positive prescription worked for a subsequent title in the previous prescriptive advancement of valid titles ex facie for the order. The following examples illustrate the circumstances in which this could happen: Lord Jones Decision issued an Order in Council to reduce the non-domino provision in favour of the majors and submitted the case by order for further discussion on the publication of an Order requiring the majors to leave the cottage. The Custodian`s policy towards a domino-free disposition dates back to the early 1990s. It is therefore likely that the majority of non-Domino injunctions, which are part of the normative advancement of securities in support of an application for registration, have already been the subject of the decision-making process described below. Therefore, no further requests should be made unless a non-Domino order is clearly contrary to a previous registered or registered title. In this case, the request must be forwarded to a Senior Clerk who will contact the Bidding Officer who will be asked to comment on the purpose of the domino-free order in accordance with the guidelines set out below. It is noted that if a claim is based on a pre-registered non-domino order, compensation will be excluded unless the 10-year limitation period has expired and appropriate proof of possession has been provided (see Lifting of the Exclusion of Compensation). The exclusion from compensation can only be lifted in June 2014 if appropriate evidence of prescribed possession from June 2004 to June 2014 has been presented. (See Previously registered non-Domino titles: has the title been validated by prescription?) It is pointed out that a provision of the donor in his favour (A to A) entered in the Sasine Register does not constitute an ex facie assessment for determining the limitation period within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Limitation and Limitation Act 1973 (Scotland). Possession of such a title for any period cannot therefore render the title indisputable. (See valid ex facie document). If the Principal Clerk decides to accept the application, it must be treated as usual.

However, compensation should be excluded if there is no prescriptive development of the securities before the domino-free act. The wording of the exclusion from compensation may vary depending on the circumstances of the case, but one of the proposed styles is as follows: the domino-free facility is a recognized and legitimate means of compensating for a missing title that otherwise cannot be corrected. For example, it can be used when the property has belonged to the same family for generations and the links not saved in the title have not been created or have been lost. It can also be used when the parties have occupied land for some time, but find that it is not included in their titles and that beneficial ownership cannot be established. However, experience has shown that the possibility of a domino-free disposition is sometimes used by parties who attempt to secretly acquire another person`s property. Over the years, the Custodian has been aware of a number of attempts to capture or register non-Domino title for properties whose true owners were easily identifiable and actively demonstrated their ownership. In one case, for example, a speculator presented a domino-free layout of a house in which the infested owner was still alive. The domino-free installation is sometimes used when a registered or registered title has been identified, but it is not possible to take back the title of the last owner or successors of that holder. If this is the case, the Principal Clerk asks the plaintiff`s lawyers what steps have been taken to contact the last owner with a registered title or to establish ownership links between that owner and a legal successor. For example, lawyers can prove that they wrote to the owner at his last known address or that they contacted the lawyers who worked for him last, or that they advertised in the local or national press for people who might be able to prove an interest in the property. If there is a likelihood that the property has fallen into the hands of the Crown as ultimus haeres or that it is a bona vacantia of a former company, lawyers should be asked to contact the Queen`s and Lord`s Treasurer Memorial at the Crown Office, Unit 5, 14A South St Andrew Street, Edinburgh EH2 2AZ. It is also important to ensure that any possession can be clearly attributed to the land interest to which the non-domino title refers.

The normal rule is that possession is attributed to the lowest interest with which it is compatible. For example, an owner who has a non-domino title to the solum of a roadway may also have an implicit or explicit right of servitude on the roadway. In this case, the use of the roadway, which is compatible with the exercise of a right of servitude, would not confirm the title to the solum. Similarly, a tenant who owns a non-domino in the landlord`s interest cannot validate the landlord`s title simply by occupying the land. Sometimes a provision of a non-domino may contain the words “a non domino” on its back or, if it is entered in the Sasine registry, the words “order found” appear on the search form.