Talk:Lien

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

UK tax lien example[edit]

From UK Tax legislation, here is an example of 'Lien':-

6.12 Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 6.13 Production of Employer's Records (3) The production of records in pursuance of this regulation shall be without prejudice to any lien which a third party may have in respect of those records

203.99.45.16 11:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

US law, common law or law in general?[edit]

There appear to be liens in more than just US law, but I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to edit the article. Is there someone who can comment on this? modify 08:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that liens are treated differently in the U.S. from in other countries. What in the U.S. is referred to as a 'lien' would probably be referred to as an 'equitable charge' in other countries (in the U.S. they talk about "registering a 'lien'" over a car or a property). In most other common law countries, liens fall into two types: common law liens, which is simply a passive right to retain (but not sell) property as security for a debt, and equitable liens, which are more like the U.S. concept, but much less common (arise in very specific circumstances - unpaid vendor's liens, liens over issued but unpaid shares and maritime liens are the only three I am aware of, although there may be others). I agree that this article could use "internationalising", but I don't think it needs to get split up. Legis 09:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, just to follow up (I looked up U.S. lien's in Black's law dictionary) I think the biggest difference between liens in the U.S. is that in the U.S. they are non-possessory, ie. you can have a lien over property which remains in the possession of the original owner. In other common law countries, generally, it is crucial for the person taking the lien to have and maintain possession of the subject matter (except for the aforementioned anomalous case of equitable liens). I might try and do a rework of this article just relying on my copy of Black's. If any U.S. lawyers would like to help, I'd be glad of their assistance. Legis 09:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have tried to "internationalise" it and bulk it up a bit. It could use some love from a US lawyer on the sections relating to US law, but at least it is a start. Legis 12:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for the nice work on the article. modify 05:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.105.53 (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lien[edit]

"Law in general" should refer to non common-law countries as well; for a start, it could be sufficient to add that in countries with a roman-law based legal system, the concept is largely identical to U.S., i. e. usually there are public registers of property with a lien attached. Further, similarly to the original the roman model, movable assets can be used as lien without registration if they are handed over to the creditor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.153.151 (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What sort of lien is this?[edit]

Am I right that this is a standard common law lien, when a private company says it will retain shares should the owner die? Wikidea 10:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Article has Lienor and Lienee Backwards[edit]

According to the article: "The owner of the property, who grants the lien, is referred to as the lienor and the person who has the benefit of the lien is referred to as the lienee." This is false. The owner of the property to which the lien attaches is the lienee; "The person having or owning a lien; one who has a right of lien upon property of another" is the lienor (Black's Law Dictionary). I would also not use the word "grant" in this context, as many liens arise by operation of law.

A mortgagor is thus a lienee and a mortgagee is a lienor. This makes sense if you go back to the roots of the words. The mortgagor (dead-)pledges its property (grants a security interest) to a creditor (in the typical case). The lienor binds the property of another to secure an obligation to the lienor. I am not editing the article because I do not have time to work through the whole thing to make conforming changes.

HardToFindAnUnusedName (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this may be a difference of application between English and US style legal systems. The "or" as a suffix indicates the person executing the relevant activity - the mortgagor executes a mortgage; the grantor is the one who executes a grant; the transferor is the one who executes the transfor. Under English legal systems, the lien is normally conferred - hence the party against whom the lien is enforced is called the lienor. Under US systems, the lien is imposed by positive action of the secured party, so the reverse language makes more sense. To be neutral, it may make sense to use alternative terms in the article, like (for example) 'propery owner' and 'secured party'. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)