Quiet title

Abstract: “Aboriginal title” is a legal construct described as a right to land, encompassing a right to the exclusive use and occupation of lands held under this title. Private property, particularly fee simple title, is protected within registry systems as “indefeasible title.” Fee simple title signals the right of exclusive possession of a defined parcel of land, and encompasses a bundle of rights tied to this form of fundamental ownership in the common law system. Indefeasible title protects the fee simple titleholder form external challenge, even from the government.The existence of these two forms of property interests, Aboriginal title and fee simple title, seems to demand some sort of “reconciliation.” It appears these two legal regimes must intersect “on the ground” in some manner, for it seems unavoidable that at some point in the future Aboriginal title will be established over an extent of land held as private property by third parties.This chapter explores the development of Aboriginal title, and juxtaposes this legal concept with common understandings of fee simple title, to see if sense can be made of the idea that both could apply to one common parcel of land (or if the exclusion of one in the face of the other is the likely outcome.) The chapter examines possible guiding principles (minimization of social disruption and respect) and focuses on what might be responsible for development and implementation of such guiding principles into “law on the ground.” The author then considers how to think about, and potentially react to, the fact that this matter plays out within the power structure of the colonial society that ignored the existence of the claims of Indigenous societies for so long.

Abstract: The recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia calls for re-examination of a number of significant Aboriginal rights issues. The crucial role of oral histories in Aboriginal rights litigation was emphasized by the Court, and guidelines were laid down for trial judges to admit and give proper weight to that evidence. For the first time the Court addressed the vital issue of the content of Aboriginal title and provided direction on how that title can be proved.The Court also dealt with the constitutional protection accorded to Aboriginal title by s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and explained how infringements of that title can be justified. Finally, the Court discussed the issue of the division of powers between the Parliament of Canada and the provincial legislatures in relation to Aboriginal rights. This last issue will be the focus of this article. I will attempt to show that the Court's pronouncements on this issue result in a fundamental realignment of constitutional jurisdiction within the provinces where Aboriginal title can be established.

Abstract: Vacant and abandoned properties are a growing concern for cities across the United States. Such property has been linked to crime, declining property values, and poor health/mental health. Vacant and abandoned properties also place a financial and manpower burden on the cities in which they are located. Land banks – governmental entities with a focus on returning vacant and abandoned properties to productive use – are emerging as a strategy to address these properties. Purpose: The purpose of this research is to describe the current status of land bank programs in the United States. Methods: Information about land bank programs is gathered through content analysis of land bank program websites. Results: The information available on land bank websites is extremely inconsistent across land banks. Approximately one quarter of listed land banks had no website available, and those websites that were located contained extremely inconsistent – and largely inadequate – information. Conclusion: Studies on land bank effectiveness are needed to determine their impact on the return of vacant and abandoned properties to productive use. Such studies are made more difficult by the varying laws, regulations, and procedures governing the operation of each land bank. The information available on most land bank websites is not sufficient to provide a foundation for comparison between entities, and the improvement of publicly available data from land banks would likely benefit scholars and potential customers. Property Disposition Matters ii Table of

Abstract: To the present day, no court in Australia has decided a case of possessory title being claimed by Aboriginal claimants. In the landmark case of Mabo v Queensland1, which awarded a group of indigenous people land rights to a small group of islands based on "native title", the only judge to even consider the issue of possessory title was Justice Toohey. However, as the following discussion will show, this lack of judicial consideration does not mean that possessory title may not be a useful and perhaps even favourable course of action for a group of Aboriginal claimants to follow. Possessory title is an old Common Law doctrine which states that the possession of land gives rights to a title which is good against the rest of the world except for a person with a better claim. The occupier of the land is feudally possessed or seised of the land and acquires a fee simple title. The common law presumes this interest in the land, and it will be effective against the world until it is rebutted by someone contending that they have better title. In light of this definition it can be seen that possessory title is based on two main elements. Firstly, the claimant must show that they have possession of the land in question. Secondly, there must not be a party present who can prove they have an existing and better title to the land.