Memorandum of Advice To: Supervising Partner From: Benjamin Fox Date: 9/5/2023 Client: Matt Maddox Re: Advice on client's rights in relation to blocks 'D' and 'E' We act for Matt Maddox. Our client requests advice about their rights in relation to the properties of blocks D and E, and whether they can obtain a fee simple interest in both properties over the parties Ally, Beth and Caleb, have a registered interest of the separate properties in accordance with the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld).1 We will also advise if Ally, Beth and Caleb can claim adverse possession over the properties. Client Advice 1 Who has legal interest over the blocks? 1.2 Who is the registered fee simple owner? Under the Torrens System, title to land is acquired by registration under the LTA.2 Once registered, the registered proprietor (RP) obtains the benefits of indefeasibility.3 Matt had a registered fee simple interest in blocks D and E, left to him by his parents in their will.4 However, Ally completed a transfer of the property's as of April 2023, transferring block D to herself and block E to herself, Beth and Caleb as tenants in common with a 1/3rd share each, registered under the LTA.5 Therefore, Ally gained a legal interest over block D and E, Beth and Caleb have gained a legal interest over both blocks, unless an exception to indefeasibility applies. 1 Land Title Act 1994 (Qld). · Ibid 3 Ibid s 37. + Ibid s 112 5 Land Title Act 1994 (Qld).
[student ID] LLB301 Real Property Law, Assignment 2 2 Does an exception to indefeasibility apply? 2.1 Fraud Fraud is an exception to indefeasibility that may apply. This exception requires actual fraud that is committed by the RP.6 Here the purported fraud is on part of Ally who is a RP of both properties and Beth and Caleb who are RPs of block E. Fraud has no legal definition, rather it has been construed through common law as being 'designed cheating'], shown through "actual fraud, personal dishonesty or moral turpitude".8 This common law meaning requires a high bar of evidence of designed cheating to amount to fraud. The category of fraud that is relevant in this case is fraud against the RP or previous RP, through Ally's actions of transferring both properties.9 Assets Co. Ltd. V Mere Roihi stated that "a transfer obtained by fraud is voidable and may be set aside ... a fraudulent transfer is one that was obtained a person with knowledge of the fraud".10 That case discussed that an intention to deceive may be inferred from the circumstances of the case and will likely demonstrate fraud.11 Here, Ally transferred the properties from Matt Maddox through hiring someone to forge his signature on each of the transfer documents, as she believed he would have no interest in the properties. Further, Beth signed as a witness for Matt's signature, under the impression that Matt had already signed the documents in the USA as induced by Ally. This