In American jurisprudence, Black`s Law Dictionary defines stapling somewhat more narrowly: Section 93 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with the prohibition of plating. The wording of this section reads as follows: One of the most confusing legal principles is the law on plating and its application to lenders. For the modern lender, uncertainty usually arises around the priorities of real estate security and personal property security. However, this legal concept is not as complex as it sounds and, if properly understood, a second lender can get enough comfort to protect its interests against its unregistered mortgages. Therefore, the doctrine of plating is one of the specific legal entities used in the money lending operation when lending the property. Any opposing owner can use this doctrine for better title. Sewing is also prohibited and has been abolished under the Transfer of Ownership Act and also repealed by the Amendment Act 1929. Thus, the doctrine of tacking gives the borrower the opportunity to take advances or loans from more than one person, and it also provides collateral for present and future transactions or advances. Therefore, it is one of the doctrines that helps the borrower to take out loans from more than one person, lender or bank. While the non-stapling rule is excluded from personal property security devices, the non-seizure rule applies to the immovable property security right. Real estate security includes real estate instruments such as mortgage loan agreements that are executed between lenders and borrowers.
However, there are exceptions to this rule against seizure in relation to the security of immovable property, as pointed out by Matzner v Clyde Securities Ltd [1975]:[vii] The factual meaning of the term stapling is sewing – all the long and loose temporary stitches used in the sewing process. The Trial Court had held that the Tacking doctrine was applicable in the present case and that the defendant had inherited Saibai`s assets. Plating is a principle that the expected order of priority of interests can be changed in certain circumstances. [i] It occurs in a scenario where a secured lender is able to „fall“ on additional advances on existing securities and take precedence over other lenders. This is relevant in situations where there is more than one secured lender on the same asset. A common example of stapling is that, as a general rule, the stapling rule applies to real estate collateral, unless it falls within one of the above exceptions where the first lender had priority over subsequent lenders. This is called the principle of plating, which, if used correctly, can be very beneficial for lenders who want to make further progress. What if you acquired the land from someone who owned it for 6 years and then did so for another 4 years? This is where the tackle concept comes in. In this case, the learned lawyer argued that, in the case of prolonged possession, the doctrine of stapling should be applied to the facts of this case. Since the applicants` rights are time-barred by the limitation period and cannot justify the present action, the action granted cannot be continued.
An important consideration for lenders is that the right to staple is denied by the actual (non-constructive) knowledge or communication of a second secured lender. [ii] This rule was reinforced by Hopkinson v Rolt (1861), who provided that a first lender is not entitled to make an additional advance if he actually has knowledge of the security of a subsequent lender. [iii] This concept is justified by the importance of equity between competing mortgagees, as it is considered unwarranted for a previous lender to intervene in the security given to the subsequent lender after notice or knowledge of a subsequent security right. However, the rule against stapling does not apply to all types of collateral, and certain precautions may be taken by lenders to protect their interests. The plating doctrine is a concept in which a person who owns real estate can pledge his property with others as security, to repay loans or advances thereof, or to pay an advance. „While this court recognizes that an adverse possession claim is made from one owner to another in order to meet the required ten-year period, it has never found that an adverse possession claim can ignore several previous owners who had possession or use by permission.“ Gillespie v.
Komentari su zatvoreni.