Why does the folio number change?
Let us consider the previous situation where the folio number of the
large HEC easement changes on a court order being made against a proprietor (namely me)
on a neighbouring suburban title. In fact this happens twice - sequentially.
This
could be a coincidence however the chance of there being no relationship at all between
myself and the neighbouring easement is small. It is more likely that I have some
proprietary interest in this large area of land. Some 23 ha of the best potential
subdivision land in Tasmania. My hidden proprietary interest in this land woul
also explain the intuitive feelings I have experienced that other persons have an
interest in my behaviour.
Looking at land tenure dysfunction is like looking at black holes, you can't see them
but you can see the results. In this case I am going to describe the highly
unusual dealings surrounding this Hydro easement as a form of imposed joint tenancy.
What I mean by this is that I believe I have been transferred more land than I know
about and that I am being held in a relationship of enforced joint tenancy with
other persons who I don't know.
A joint tenancy is a specific way of holding land. It means that there is no
survivorship. If I die then the other joint tenants inherit my share of the property.
This joint tenancy causes real problems for mortgagees in any situation.
A joint tenancy means that there has to be four unities, these unities are of time,
title and interest and possession. Mortgagees (banks etc who lend money) face a problem with
a joint tenancy as if a joint tenant dies then the mortgage tends to die
with the person as there is no interest to attach the loan to.
However in an old system
mortgage ( a mortgage under general law - not a Torrens mortgage) the mortgage
acts as a transfer of land therefore this acts to sever the joint tenancy as
there is no longer the unity of interest as the interest in the mortgage is created
under a different instrument to the instrument which created the interest. I
realize this sounds bizarre but stay with me.
A Torrens mortgage does not act as a transfer of land and this is the problem
mortgagees who are dealing with properties where there are joint tenants.
The mortgage does not sever the joint tenancy so I believe that the way the mortgagees overcome this
problem is to have the mortgage registered under a different folio number to the folio on which the transfer
is registered - this means that the interest (the mortgage) arises under a different instrument to that which
effects the transfer. I believe this is the real reason why banks are registering their mortgages on
different folio numbers to that specified in the mortgage deed.
If anyone is thinking that this is a truly bizarre even nutty way of thinking it is fairly typical of the
way a whole lot of lawyers can twist reality to ensure that conveyancing can survive dysfunctional land tenure.
It is a form of legal black magic.
Conversely in a joint tenancy in the case of a default or a writ against a proprietor
the mortgagee can also
attach its mortgage to the common property in other words all the property
of the other joint tenants. How do
those vested interests maintain their interest free of the bank's interest?
The folio number of the affected property is changed. This
means that there is no unity of interest because the proprietor with the writ
against them is now on a different
title to the remainder of the common property. This is why the folio number of the HEC easement
changes after court orders are made against me - there are other joint tenants whose property must
be protected from the bank's interest. I have some proprietory interest
in this easement which I don't know about.
Now I should say here that I have spent four years going through courts saying
that the mortgage should be registered on the
folio specified in the mortgage deed and have had no success.
It could be that I am the deranged one in this situation and that this
situation
of enforced joint tenancy has not
really developed in the area bordered in black in the scans featured on
previous pages. However I must point out that
if there is the slightest chance that this type of situation could have arisen probably due
to some sort of historical gridlock in the land title registry, then this is a matter
which should be investigated at some length.
Serious problems could develop under some
circumstances as there would be some hidden motivation for some individuals
and groups to want to effect court orders against some of their neighbours and this
could bring the entire court system into disrepute.
The situation of enforced joint tenancy means that there are connections between
people in a given area which should not normally arise and this could lead to
problems of neighbourhood nuisance and harassment.
The complex relationships between proprietors which develop in these large areas of
enforced joint tenancy should also be examined by law enforcement as under certain
conditions they could be a factor in some criminal events as there could be
a motive for the hidden or undisclosed joint tenants to extinguish the interests
of the unknowing proprietor.
If my allegations about this hidden joint tenancy are correct then this could also be
a very good explanation for psychiatric illnesses. People aren't stupid and people
afflicted with this sort of hidden interest in land may become aware that other persons
have some sort of hidden interest in their well being and manifest paranoid symptoms.
This may sound like a far-out scenario but it should be considered. If there
is any truth in this theory then the land titles in a
particular area will show particular features:
1) some systemic correlation between the creation of new folios in the area
and court dates.
2) inconsistencies in the dates of plans (this will be
explored in a later page)
3) the mortgages will be effected under a different title number to that
which
creates the interest
4) there will be a failure of severance of a joint tenancy at some
stage further back in the historic deeds, for example a joint tenant may
have failed to transfer land to himself before transferring to another.