Brain fried
Have been working all day on issues to do with trustees, mortgages, priorities and equitable and legal interests - namely, what priority an equitable interest of a 3rd party mortgagee has as compared to the equitable interest of a beneficiary to a trust, if that 3rd party mortgagee has an equitable interest in a property created by a mortgage granted by the trustee of that property, but doesn't know at the time know that the trustee is in fact a trustee and therefore, has no notice of the equitable interest of the beneficiaries?
To some of you, some of that was gobbledygock! I was thinking that as I was sorting through these issues...that I know stuff that probably most of the world knows nothing about. Nebulous, weird, obscure concepts that your average person will never know or care about! It's funny how I'm growing into this profession...a bit scary actually.
(Hehehehe. But you know what....I like knowing about stuff like this! Call me a nerd, but I think it's kind of cool. Like I'm learning secret lawyer language! Hehehehehe.)
Ok. My brain must be fried.
posted by Em @ 10:35 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Whoa...thanks for your comment...errr...I guess.
Firstly, maybe I'm just not of the calibre of law graduate that you are, but I have no idea how to express those concepts in non-legal jargon. How do you explain "equitable interest" in non-legalese...?? (Dammit, I'm finishing in 2 days time, and I don't know how to do it yet!)
Secondly, it's presumptious of you to assume that I act or talk like this anywhere else except outside this post. FYI, my other job is in a community legal centre (where we give free legal advice to people who can't afford it). It is the home of the anti-legal-jargon movement. It is also the home of solicitors in no suits and bare feet, no air-conditioning, and old coffee, but that's another post. (Btw, they're recruiting as well...need a new job?)
Thirdly, I am more articulate than probably 95% of the population. But that has less to do with my law degree, and more to do with my individual and natural brilliance.
Fourthly...you didn't happen to know the answer to that question did you? I never did find the answer...
Hey, you know, I've never heard that "first, secondly, thirdly" rule before...surprising, because I am a grammar nazi (it all started with highschool Latin).
Suffice to say it created quite a debate in the legal centre today, which was resolved by our good friend Google (which said that "first, secondly, thirdly" is traditional, but "firstly, secondly, thirdly" is acceptable in modern usage). Regardless, I shall remember that for future reference! (Or just stick to numbered lists!)
On the legal question, that's what I thought too, but apparently there's cases that say that that general rule doesn't apply where there are trusts involved. In the end I could only offer the solicitor my humble (very humble) opinion. And leave the whole mess to the next day's research clerk. Hehehehe...
Post a Comment
<< Home