Land compensation advice in the event of a settlement

[tomsteel]

I raise this subject separately so as not to detract from a recent similar post, but which concerned apartments and to appear to have hijacked that thread.

There has been much discussion and rumour generated recently about a method of compensation to pre-'74 GC land owners in the event of a settlement. My question is a personal one, but I dare to suggest it will affect a number of TC and expat purchasers alike of properties (fully paid for) but subject to unknown stealth mortgages taken out on the land by developers and builders, despite contracts stating there were no impediments to kocans being issued.

In the event of a settlement, and the land being owned under mortgage to a bank, is the bank, therefore, liable for any compensation payable? In my and my neighbours case, it was the Government (Koop) Bank issuing the illegal stealth mortgage as they knew properties were there and failed to show due diligence. Interesting quandary for the TRNC Government to resolve, legally I might add!

Anybody with a legal qualification or interest who could respond, I would be very grateful. Thanks in advance.

[tomsteel]

Can anyone offer an opinion?

[£eagle]

No one can know what may happen. It will depend on the outcome of the negotiations.

The hints are that, in the case of developped land the occupier will be preferred over the original owner who will be compensated for the value of the unimproved land. I.e. this follows the policy of the Property Commission.

I not read anything about who would pay the compensation post settlement.

In your case you are not the legal owner and there is a stealth mortgage. I would imagine that any liability falling on the legal owner (meaning here the holder of a trnc kocan) would not be paid so you, as occupier under an unenforceable contract, would be "stuffed" one way or another.

As all is still just speculation this comment is pretty valueless.

[turtle]

My guess would be if this situation was to become active then surely the government would have made some kind of provision for this or maybe if the Bank pays compo then I would imagine this would be added to the mortgage which would make the situation much worse.

[come_on_aylin]

I would be interested to know if adverse possession applies here. That is "Adverse possession is a doctrine under which a person in possession of land owned by someone else may acquire valid title to it, so long as certain common law requirements are met, and the adverse possessor is in possession for a sufficient period of time, as defined by a statute of limitations."

In UK I believe the period is 12 years.

[£eagle]

CoA,
Are you thinking of adverse possession against an original Gc owner? The adverse possession period here was (I believe) very long, 40 years, that would take you to 2014. There is also a difficulty in claiming against the title holder of registered land.

Perhaps Mr Akinci should tell the other Mr A "too late, your 40 years are up. You get nothing."

[come_on_aylin]

I was hoping there might be a shorter term against the TRNC "owner". Might get a few people out of a mess, especially where they are being held to ransom over title deeds.

I wish the government would give builders/vendors an amnesty over their dues then the buyers could just pay theirs to get title. The government get some money rather than none (in a lot of cases) and buyers get title deeds, job done.