Talk:Allodial title

Cleanup

I've added a cleanup tag to this article. It's really atrocious -- has large sections of confusion punctuated by passages of total nonsense. I've also deleted a little bit of total tax protester drivel, like the bit about "declaring one's sovereign right." But, really, I'm not sure this article can be salvaged. It really needs the attention of someone who knows a lot about the history and philosophy of property and property law (which is not me -- I just know more than whoever wrote it). --Paultopia (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This article has significant inaccuracies, in particular insofar as it relates to English law (there aint no such thing as British law -- ghastly notion). The historical section is an awful pastiche and has some howlers (we didn't have Dukes until after Quia Emptores for example) but gives the wrong impression of how things worked.

Also, as used in English law, "Allodial Land" means something (land which has no lord) which does not easily fit with the idea of an "allodial title", we have to clarify how the phrase has developed in meaning in the US to make this NPOV. Perhaps a Scottish lawyer could assist with allodium there.

Francis Davey 22:19, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Help! Can someone who knows more about wikipedia please undo the last merge!!!! I spent some time getting the allodial article vaguely accurate. Now that has all been wiped out into this mess of an article with (as I said) lots of inaccuracies. I notice very little has been carried over from the other article to here and the action was done without proper consulation. Also all the talk is lost.

Francis Davey 21:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A big problem with this article (and with the previous article merged into it) is that the "allodium" of the feudists was something very different from what this article is plfbdf dsfgfdsbg dsf eased to call "true allodial title."

An inaccuracy: Bankrupcies are purely a matter of Federal law; any protection of assets (under whatever name, by whatever theory) from such proceedings must arise under Federal law. Nevada has no power to do so.

Also, it is not the nature of allodial title that prevents its alienation, so much as that the law, having had, over most of a thousand years, no cause to notice such a thing, provides no form whereby it might be done. Once allowing that it might be in private hands, there is nothing about allodial title that is incompatible with descent, for example; rather, any notice the laws of descent might take of "true allodial title" would depend upon statutes yet to be enacted.

CDJones 04:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTW, you can get back to the original "Allodial" page (and its talk) by clicking on the "Redirected from" link at the top of this article. To see that link, though, you will first need to try to retrieve the article under its original title. Or, if you want, I can paste it over here.

CDJones 05:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right of conquest?

The article states that the U.S. obtained New Mexico, California, and Arizona by conquest. Obviously this was true as a practical matter, but... technically, these lands were obtained by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the war. Since I believe that treaty contained provisions relating to land ownership, it seems as we should be going down the legal route here. --Jfruh 17:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I am a U.S. lawyer who wandered onto this article through reading the article on bailments. This is one of my first postings here so excuse any inadvertent screwups. I never heard of allodial title before. The content of the article seems inaccurate. Wikipedia is certainly universal. I believe legal principles should be meticulously stated. The jurisdiction is important to mention. Heaven help any nonlawyer who reads this article and relies on it for knowledge. Another objection to the article is that the writing lacks clarity. It certainly isn't a sexy topic but I'm an Anglophile. I love reading about the merry old days in mother England. 75Janice 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Limited Allodial Title

Hahaha!!!! That is funny! Who is insane enough to think that there is a "Limited Allodial Title"??? A "Limited Allodial Title" would be the same as "Limited Complete Title", hehe!
I also think this article is very biased against people who actually own their property. How can you misuse complete ownership? The fact that we don't pay tax on our property just means we own it; and the reason you pay tax on yours is because you do NOT own it. It is simple, and you guys should study some law before you go out slandering property owners!
One more thing, if you are so ignorant you somehow believe having an Allodial title and not paying property tax is wrong, then you will have a big problem with the government; because the government owns the Allodial title to "YOUR" property! 68.118.212.46 21:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke or what

Few citations from the article as it is now: "... free and clear of any encumbrances, including liens, mortgages and tax obligations ...", "... absolute property ... without ... acknowledgement to a superior ...", and "... in the United States most lands are allodial ...".

If someone has a property, is (s)he responsible to the state and is (s)he obliged to pay property taxes or not? Does the property owner have full/complete power over his property, or should obey court orders, search warrants, etc.? Not to talk about mortgages at all.

It would be nice if the complete freedom was walking throughout the U.S.A. but then we would have seen more dukes and less counties there. -- Goldie (tell me) 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently redunant sections

Why is there a section on equity? That has (surely) nothing whatsoever to do with land tenure and therefore allodial title. Its a pretty confused section at that! The "Proof of Ownership" section, as well as being highly misleading, seems to have nothing to do with the article at all. Surely what is relevant is what follows: namely the Treaty of Paris and how land was treated in the US following its break with Great Britain and thus how allodial title (which did not exist in England and Wales) came to exist in the US? I am keen to delete the two redundant sections unless anyone objects. Francis Davey 16:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is also relevant to know the origin of "allodial" title in England. Thomas Jefferson, in his "Summary View of the Rights of British America" describes the following: "That the Saxon settlers in England held their lands, as well as their personal property in absolute dominion. With the invasion of the Normans, a feudalist system was first introduced by William, the Conqueror whose kingdom was largely comprised of lands belonging to those who fell at the battle of Hastings as well as in subsequent insurrections of his reign. William granted out these lands, subject to feudal duties. However, much land was still left in the hands of his Saxon subjects, held of no superior, and not subject to feudal conditions. This absolute dominion by the Saxons over their land was termed by the feudalists as "allodial". By express laws, to render the system of military defense uniform in his realm, William made the Saxon lands liable to the same military duties as if they had been feuds, and the Norman lawyers soon found means to settle them also with all the other feudal burdens. Still, their lands had not been surrendered to William, nor were they a grant by him to the Saxons. Thus was introduced a general principle that "all lands in England were held either mediately or immediatly by the crown". Yet this view was borrowed from those holdings which were truly feudal. Feudal holdings were therefore an exception out of the Saxon law of possession, under which all lands were held in absolute right. Because of this, the Saxon law of possession still forms the basis of the common law to prevail wherever the exceptions have not taken place."

Thus we come to land ownership in America. America was not conquered by William, the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him or any of his successors. Therefore, possessions of land in America are undoubtedly "allodial" in nature. The settlers of early America were farmers and not lawyers. Using the fictitious principle that all lands belonging originally to the king, they were accordingly enticed to take grants of their own lands from the crown. With the "Treaty of Paris" any claim by the English crown to title and possession in lands in America were renounced. After each of the thirteen original States settled titles in their state after the Declaration of Independence and the "Treaty of Paris", subsequent lands came into the Union through outright purchase, such as Louisiana Territory, Florida and Alaska, through treaty such as the Ohio Valley, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona and California and through annexation such as Texas, Oregon and Hawaii. These various acquisitions included questions about land titles of one kind or another. In general, it can be said that as new states joined the Union, title to the lands within their borders was held by each sovereign state in "allodium". This land is not subject to taxation by the Federal Government. While dominion by each sovereign state over land in its borders is absolute ("allodial"), the state legislators decide how subsequent title is conveyed and held. Most states grant "fee simple" titles, which means an exclusive right to use the land. "Fee simple" title to land does not grant absolute ownership in this case, which contrasts with ownership in personal property, which is absolute. "Fee simple" ownership is subject to eminent domain, taxation, invasion by police powers and escheat. Under the U.S. Constitution, personal property is subject to neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.40.194 (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That is merely Jefferson's view and must be taken in context, its only real value is in indicating how Jefferson regarded things, or how he felt things should be. As a traitor Jefferson was hardly likely to uphold the Crown's rights.--Utinomen (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Paris

Where is allodial title mentioned in the Treaty of Paris?

According to the Treaty of Paris section of this article, it resulted in the creation of allodial title in the US. I'm not a US lawyer, so I have no really clear idea of whether that is right, but that's what it says here. Francis Davey 08:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the text of the treaty. There's no reference to allodial title. I'm beginning to wonder about the content of this article as a whole. Alan 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that what is stated in the article sounds rather unlikely, anyway: England [sic] agreed to give up any Crown rights to the land, and agreed that all land in the American colonies was held in allodial title. It rather goes without saying that "Crown rights to the land" would be given up, as this is virtually inherent in the notion of conceding independence. And the notion that the treaty would stipulate the nature of property title seems absurd even before reading the text of the treaty; what would be the point?! Silverhelm 16:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

I'd propose deleting references to the Treaty of Paris and the section on equitable tenures. Alan 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am only speculating on this and know nothing about law and what actually did happen. Maybe allodial came as a consequense that all land was previously owned by the crown and after the treaty lost ownership of it. Either the states would become the new owners or the people themself as any other kind of private property hence enjoy the same rights as anyone of royal heritage. Lord Metroid 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusing part about eminent domain

"However, "To say that land is owned 'allodially' is a fiction. For land is subject to expropriation by way of eminent domain." [1]" What does this mean? Is it inalienable or not? Mammalian 13:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously because the state can just take your property without legal consequense the state owns it. Lord Metroid 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that the state owns your property, just that the state creates your rights, and one of those is the right to property; ergo, the state can create (and has created) a limited right. bd2412 T 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)>>

That may be the theory in some places, but some formulations of rights (e.g. US Bill of Rights, Declaration of the Rights of Man) assert that rights exist independently of the state. A more generally applicable myth theory, I think, would be that we partially surrender some of our rights through the social contract. —Tamfang (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

States do not create rights. Rights belong to people intrinsically, and we delegate powers to states in order to secure our rights. This delegation is not a surrender of our rights. 24.6.157.14 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

alienation

An inalienable right is one that cannot be transferred to another; that means, among other things, that it cannot be sold. Is that true of allodial titles? If not, the word ought to be changed. —Tamfang 18:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No idea. My jurisdiction has no allodial land (as I would understand the term), so I can only guess. Sadly, this article has given me no more clue. Francis Davey 19:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Allodial Title and the law of England and Wales

I've just stumbled on this article and regret to say that as regards England and Wales, in its present state, it is almost completely wrong. I am writing this as an English lawyer. The only point where it is correct is that England and Wales do not have allodial title. Yes, all land is notionally held of the Crown, but in practice this has almost no practical consequences. It does not even have much practical bearing on land which is owned by central government.

Land registration was not introduced in the 18th century, It was introduced in the 19th century, but outside London has only really spread since about 1970. There was an attempt to introduce deed registration by counties in the 16th century. It failed because conveyancers found a way of circumventing it. Scotland and many other jurisdictions did have deed registation. This included many colonies. Scotland has had what was called the Register of Sassines. There was a form of deed registration in Yorkshire, by Riding. That did derive from the 18th century. Deed registration is a quite different concept from land registration.

So far as English law is concerned, if there was allodial title, this would have no bearing on either mortgages or taxation. It would have none of the bizarre effects the article hints at. There would be nothing in English law that could make allodial land any more or less alienable than any other. Indeed, under medieval or early modern law, such land, if it had existed, would have been more alienable since there would have been no seignorial rights to restrain alienation. Mortgages are enforceable because of the terms under which they created, as developed and limited by the courts and statute over the centuries. They are not a matter of tenure.

Again, the raising of taxes is not a matter of tenure. It derives under modern English law from the executive powers given to the state by statute. Furthermore, it is taxpayers that are taxed, not pieces of land. So the idea that some form of tenure could take a piece of land outside the state's powers of taxation simply is not part of English law at all. As a concept, it does not make sense.

I get the impression from the article that it may be that in the US, what we would call compulsory purchase, is called eminent domain. So the state's ability to acquire property is seen as deriving from the equivalent of the fact that notionally all land is held of the Crown. However, in England and Wales compulsory purchase does not work like that. What happens is that the government, local authority or whatever is given specific powers to purchase land whether or not the owner is willing to sell. The purchasing entity has to pay for it. There are frequently arguments about how to value the land. It buys broadly what the owner is capable of selling. The owner does not surrender their tenure. They sell the land in the normal way, just like any other sale except it is involuntary.

As a demonstration of this, if there is more than one interest in the land, e.g. a freehold and a lease, the purchasing entity has to buy in each of them separately.

There is no sense that in some way this derives from medieval ideas about derivative tenure. The purchase can only take place if the power is given by legislation of some sort. The purchase has to comply strictly with the rules applicable to the legislation under which the power to purchase is given.

It is possible that concepts of tenure may have made it easier for English land and trust law to develop some of their more sophisticated features. They might have been harder to imagine in a jurisprudence where ownership was more 'absolute' on a Latin model. That, though, is a different question.

I'm not going to try and change the article as it's difficult to know where to start and much of it is written from the standpoint of a legal system I know next to nothing about. But I thought I'd offer this in the hope that there was someone out there who just happened to have this on their watch list and might be interested.--Browne-Windsor (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your criticisms on this article, & believe its bizarreness is due to someone who is not at all familiar with real estate law mistakenly applying it to modern practice in the UK & the US. However, IMHO the concept of allodial title is alien to both countries. You have stated the reasons for it in the UK; in the US there was a thorough & intentional movement to eleiminate all possible effects of feudalism by 19th century legal-types, some of whom understood what they were doing better than others. Thus either all land under US law has an allodial title -- for there is no lord is owed rent or services for holding it -- or none of it has one, for I can subrent or sublease any real estate I own an interest in.

As for the section on allodial title being used by tax protesters, while these applications of the theory are interesting as well as plausible (US tax protesters are nothing if not ingenuous in finding rationales for not paying taxes), I'd be far happier with this section if it furnished actual, verifiable cases where these arguments have been made in court. Until these sources are supplied, this section is nothing more than so much original research, a personal essay on "suggested frivolous arguments you can make to a judge & risk being jailed for contempt of court". -- llywrch (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Since which time the European Charter of Fundamental Rights has put the final nail into the coffin of the idea, making it illegal for a State to dispossess a citizen without fair compensation. As a minor detail, to prove the greater point, the Cadbury factory at Knighton in the Welsh Marches stood partly on an allodial fee, a minor legal discrepancy which was tidied up in the 1980s. Cadbury never attempted to use it to claim exoneration from taxation, even though I argued the point with their tax adviser!

The idea is relevant to mediaeval studies, but lapsed once monarchy ceased to be based on Divine Right and became constitutional, in the UK after the Civil War and in other countries with their various Revolutions of the 19the Century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.143.179 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I added the NPOV tag to the section on "allodial title advocates". The current text takes it as a given that those who seek allodial title to their land are wrong to do so. 24.6.157.14 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Allodial Title over your own body?

In the US, does a person have alloidial title over their own body? Or is this addressed in another section of law? DiprotiumOxide (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the US, but can't see how a person would own their body. It's more that it's part of them. I'm aware though that there have been arguments about ownership of bodies of dead people and medical research derived from parts of dead people.[[Browne-Windsor (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)]]

This is actively in dispute (that is, can you sell you organs for a profit? Can you prostitute your body, etc.) From my limited, lay knowledge of property law, it seems that (in the U.S.) there are two general theories. One is that you do have title to your "body," but that title is limited (remember the "bundle of sticks" explanation for fee simple). The second is that you don't -- at least you can't formulate a claim for conversion (see Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P.2d 479). Regardless, alloidal title doesn't seem to be particularly relevant in the U.S. at all (from law school and various treatises I've searched in--a 1L property law class does not even mention it, and it seems to have only a passing mention in treatises.) This brings me to my second point (below). Lazulilasher (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The US seems to have no problem issuing Intellectual Property rights in respect to various mechanisms by which life maintains itself. The putative implication is that if I wish to continue living I must pay those copyright owners a locence fee for the use of the techniques they have sequestered unto themselves! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.143.179 (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Need real legal citations on this

Greetings, I am concerned about the veracity of this article. While the term allodial undoubtedly exist[ed], I have serious doubts that true 'alloidal' or absolute ownership even exists in the United States presently, at least not beyond fee simple (notably, the word "title" doesn't seem to appear at all in the Treaty of Paris.) If it does, it must not be particularly prevalent. Can someone cite a modern treatise, or modern case law that supports its importance -or need- for such a lengthy discussion? If not, I'm going to remove uncited portions of this text, pursuant to WP:CITE after some time has passed. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, the concept of "inalienable" property seems quite contrary to the Common Law system which seems to frown on significant restraints on alienability. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm only a first year law student, but from what I've learned so far it is considered against public policy for land to have a restraint on alienability. Some implicit restraints are allowed to stand for various reasons, but explicit prohibitions are typically voided as a matter of common law within the United States. KenBest (talk) 02:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

apparently, wp:soap of Ron Paul set,[1] and tax resisters, notwithstanding [2]. i would like to see more about France and Germany for which there are historical examples: Count palatine; Franche-Comté; Freiherr; Brunswick-Lüneburg, etc. cheers Accotink2 talk 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What is this article about?

If this is just about a type of possession why is the article so long? I would suggest the answer is given in the first sentence "Allodial title is a concept" - so it is not just a legal definition it is a concept. Well, what is that concept and whose concept is it? I would propose that the basic themes to structure the article should be:

• Origins of the system in Germanic law, what it actually meant during that period
• Why it disappeared/changed in some parts of the Germanic world, such as England
• The history of the political interpetation, i.e. as part of development of concept of supposed early Anglo-Saxon liberty
• Subsequent political use as a concept, such as in newly established USA

--Utinomen (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

i added some history from the german wiki article Accotink2 talk 15:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

i added refs to nevada section, but it is a cut a paste job from [3]; it needs a copyedit. Accotink2 talk 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

England

Some one had tagged the statement that all land in England is held of the crown as dubious. The statement is in fact correct, but since most land is held in socage for an estate in fee simple, the rights of the crown as feudal superior are at best elusory. Nevertheless, the land will revert to the crown as bona vacantia on a death intestate without close relatives. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oddly, bona vacantia is evidence against any sort of subsisting survival of the rights of the Crown as feudal superior. The reason for this is extremely technical.

Land is real property. Chattels, money etc are personal property. For historical reasons, leases count as personal property. Until 1925, if a person died intestate (i.e. without a will) their real property passed to their heir, and their personal property did not. It was distributed under rules of intestacy. If a person had no heir, the land did then revert to the lord of the fee, who would usually, but in theory not invariably, be the Crown. This process was known as escheat. The tenure died. The land remained in the hands of whoever the person was of whom it was held.

If a person died with no one entitled to their personal property, those were bona vacantia, 'vacant goods'. The Crown claimed them because there was nowhere else for them to go.

One of the reforms in 1925, was that descent of real and personal property would thereafter be governed by the same rules, and those were to be the ones that apply (with some modernisation) to personal property. So escheat ceased to exist. If a person dies with no will and no kin, the whole lot goes to the Crown as bona vacantia. --Browne-Windsor (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is essentially a semantic issue. This may indeed be the effect of the 1925 legislation, but if it was intented to convert all land to allods, I would have expected there to be some express provision. If you can find a source in an academic work for what you have said, I would suggest that you add something to that effect to the article - that under the 1925 property legislation the right of escheat disappeared, so that all land in England in effect became allodal. However, I suspect you will find that there is also a contrary academci view, in which case this should also be mentioned. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The 1925 legislation did not make all land in England and Wales allodial. All land is still notionally held of a feudal lord, who is usually the Crown. The cumulative effect of time and legislation means that there aren't very many remaining consequences of that doctrine.--Browne-Windsor (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I rather agree. This is a largely semantic question. However, there is a difference between land ownership in US and England. In US, constitutionally, the government cannot derogate from a citizen's ownership right, for example by requiring the preservation of a historic building; that object can only be achieved by giving tax incentives to do the right thing. In England, the state regularly derogates from a citizen's rights, by imposing new obligations, such as through the planning system. This is because in UK Parliament is sovereign, where as in US the constitution is. BTW, The feudal lord may be the crown or the lord of a manor; and there may be several levels of mesne lordship, below the crown, However, this is merely of historic interest and the decent of some mesne lordships cannot be traced beyond the late medieval period, because it was essentially an empty title. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Brown-Windsor is wrong to say that escheat ceased to exist - it did not. As the Law Commission discovered when investigating the present land law before proposing what became the Land Registration Act 2002, several hundred fee simple estates cease to exist and the land escheats to the Crown in demesne. This _is_ a consequence of holding in fee simple and has practical effect for those who (say) own leaseholds from limited company freeholders. In insolvency the limited company's freehold could well be disclaimed and the freehold then fall by escheat into Crown demesne. Francis Davey (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You now need to examine the effect of CFR on that thesis: Nations are now forced to compensate where such dospossessions occur. CFR has preeminence over National Law by virtue both of its Constitutional nature under English Law and as International Law through its embodiment in the Treaty of Lisbon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.96.143.179 (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Charter of Fundamental Rights doesn't have any effect on English land law - certainly not of that kind. In any case, its irrelevant. Escheat is not a deprivation of property from anyone. It only occurs (now) when the property is already in the hands of the Crown and is disclaimed by the Official Solicitor, so there is no need to compensate anyone. Francis Davey (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputed

This article makes very little sense, and is poorly sourced. See 80% of this talk page for proof. Accordingly, I have added the {{Disputed}} template. --Alx xlA (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'm considering a nomination for deletion. I am unsure if "alloidal title" (as an alternative to fee simple) really exists. I have been unable to find a reference in any legal treatise. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)