Land
In common speech, we know very well what “land” means. It is one of those words that hardly need definition. (What is “dog” or “cat?” ) If we attempt to define it, we may in some way distort or restrict the meaning which we know well without definition. (If we define “dog” as a four-footed animal, does the term include a horse or a mouse? If we use size to constrict the meaning, how do we include an Irish wolfhound, which can be as big as a pony, or cubs of some breeds that can be as small as mice?)
We can do well, however, to offer some clarification as to the meaning of our word.
First of all, consider the fact that we often distinguish “land” and “sea.” Nevertheless, we accept that land can sometimes be covered by sea, and we sometimes refer to ”land under the sea.” It is as well to be content, therefore, that land can be either under water or not. Land that is not under water, we can, when we we need to be explicit, refer to as “dry land.”
Secondly, let’s distinguish between “land” and “buildings.” Everybody (except lawyers, sometimes) knows that “land” and “buildings” are two separate and distinct things. If we wish to refer to both of these together, (for they share certain attributes, such as being the subject of ownership), we can refer to them as “real property.”
If a legal definition includes “buildings” within the definition of “land,” (as occurs in Ireland’s Registration of Title Act), this can only apply within a limited context and where reason permits. It is like where a peson writing about beverages says, “Coffee includes Cocoa and Tea.” He does so in order not to have to repeat the three words over and over. We will know well that he means that Coffee will include Tea only where the context requires and reason permits. Where he talks about Coffee Beans, we all know immediately that he does not mean to infer that there are Tea Beans.
Thirdly, let us distinguish between “land” and “interest in land.” Lawyers sometimes use phrases such as “Freehold Land,” or “Leasehold Land,” as if there are two (or more) kinds of land, a Freehold kind and a Leasehold kind (and other kinds). In fact, both of these terms can refer to exactly the same piece of land. To be absolutely semantically correct, there is no such thing as either “Freehold Land” or “Leasehold Land.” Rather what we have is “a Freehold Interest in a piece of Land,” and “a Leasehold Interest in a piece of Land.” Indeed, if we have a Leasehold Interest, we must, of necessity, also have a Freehold Interest in the same land, since, to have a Lease, we must have a landlord as well as a tenant.
An Interest in Land is what an owner owns. A Freehold Owner owns a Freehold Interest and a Leasehold Owner owns a Leasehold Interest. Whenever a person tells us that he owns land, we can legitimately (if tiresomely) ask what Interest in the land he owns.
The following are some Interests in Land: Freehold (which lasts forever), Leasehold (i.e. for a period of years), Sub-Leasehold (a period of years granted as a sub-lease by the owner of a Lease), Periodic Tenancy (e.g., weekly tenant, monthly tenant, yearly tenant), Right of Way, Grazing Right, Mining Right, Right of Light, Watering Right, etc.
A term in relation to property (real or personal) that is often confused with “Interest” is “Estate.” An owner could leave his land (but actually, of course, his Freehold or Leasehold or other Interest in Land) to his spouse for life and after her death to one or more of his children. In that case, his spouse would inherit a Life Estate in the (Interest in the) Land, and his children would inherit a Remainder Estate (in the Interest) to come into effect on the death of the spouse.
The original owner I mentioned had held the entire Freehold or Leasehold Interest, not just a Life Estate or a Remainder Eatate. If he had held just a Life Estate, he would have had no say in what would happen to the Land after his death. If he had a Remainder Estate, he would not have been in Possession of the Land until the Life Tenant died and his Remainder Estate came inot Possession.
Laymen are not the only people to get confused when it comes to Interests and Estates. In fact, lawyers are often quite confused, as were the people who brought the Feudal Laws to England, so the English Law itself can be quite confused in these matters.
It is a bit infra dig to refer to a “piece of land.” The correct term for a piece of land, whatever the size of the piece, is a “Parcel of Land.”
In summary, we are correct to understand a Parcel of Land to be:
- A piece of the solid surface of the earth, of whatever size;
- Whether under or over water.
An owner does not own land, but rather he owns an Interest in Land. An Interest can be held for an Estate, such as an Esate for Life or a Future/ Remainder Estate, or an Estate encompassing the entire Freehold or Leasehold Interest in Possession. On other pages of this site, I hope to clarify many of these things and lots of other matters relating to land, and to draw in interesting comments on the discussion.