учебный год 2023 / (Encyclopedia of Law and Economics 5) Boudewijn Bouckaert-Property Law and Economics -Edward Elgar Publishing (2010)

Title systems and recordation of interests 195

per cent (ILD, 2006). The predicted effect concerning the use of recorded property as collateral, resulting in a better access to the credit market, remained, however, disappointing in the first years after the titling (ILD, 2006). Morris Guerinoni observes, however, a considerable increase of mortgages and loans during later years (Morris Guerinoni, 2004, 26). Jansen and Roquas perceive only a weak link between titling of land and access to the credit market in Honduras (Jansen and Roquas, 1998, 88). Field and Torero found that people with a title are more inclined to apply for loans and that such applicants enjoy also a higher approval rate from the public banks or a lower interest rate from private banks (Field and Torero, 2003, 5–11). Finally Field found that titling led to higher labour participation as people have to spend less time in protecting their property (Field, 2003a, 34; Field, 2003b, 19).

3.Security in transaction: the rule of possession or a title system

We have seen above that uncertainty plays an important role as one of the dominant cost factors in the transfer of assets and rights and these assets. In order to diminish uncertainty in markets legal systems develop what Hansmann and Kraakman call verification rules (Hansmann and Kraakman, 2002, 384). A possession rule is a common example of a verification rule. A simple possession rule establishes an absolute link between possession and ownership. To be certain the potential purchaser has only to check whether the vendor is in actual possession. Possession rules are often more sophisticated as they combine with a prescription rule (or limitation statute in the common law tradition). In this case certainty is only provided when the vendor is in possession of a good during the required prescription term. The elapse of this term avoids all possible other claims on the assets which might have been established prior to the acquisition by the vendor. In this case the potential purchaser has only to check whether the purchaser was in effective possession during the required prescription term. Recordation and title system are a different verification rule. In this case relevant information about the legal status of the asset is stored in a public register, so that potential purchasers are able to check about the rights’ situation of the asset they are envisaging to acquire. In legal systems both verification rules operate side by side but on other categories of goods. A very common distinction is the chattel-real estate one, whereby the possession rule rather prevails for chattel and title systems for real estate (Bouckaert and De Geest, 1998).

A cost-minimizing efficiency model should focus on the comparison between the costs of a possession-based property system and a title system. According to Baird and Jackson the latter is more costly to administer but reduces the likelihood of non-consensual transfer, while the former

196 Property law and economics

facilitates transactions but not without raising the possibility of fraud and theft (Baird and Jackson, 1984).

Hansmann and Kraakman develop an efficiency model in order to explain the choice of the verification rule. Each verification rule has its user costs, i.e. the costs for the ones establishing the right (the purchaser, the mortgagee), nonuser costs, i.e. the costs for third persons not submitted to the established right (e.g. a purchaser checking whether there are no encumbrances on land he envisages to acquire), system costs, i.e. general, relatively fixed costs of establishing and maintaining a given verification rule for a particular right (e.g. the costs of establishing and maintaining a registry) (Hansmann and Kraakman, 2002, 396). A system is efficient when it maximizes the aggregate value of assets to right holders less the aggregate user, nonuser and system costs. According to Miceli the choice between a possession-based property system and a title system will depend on the magnitude of the different cost categories, which will be in turn determined by the characteristics of property (Miceli, 1997). Bouckaert and De Geest perceive the following determinants for the choice between a possession rule and the development of a title system: 1) durability of the good in question: as the costs of title systems are rather fixed, the more durable the good the lower the cost of a filing; 2) frequency of transfer: when goods are frequently transferred, the costs of filing is relatively higher; 3) the heterogeneity of a good: items with unique characteristics are cheaper to file than homogeneous goods for which an artificial uniqueness is necessary; and 4) the value of the good: as costs of filing are fixed filing is relatively cheaper for high-value goods than low-value ones. These determinants explain why title systems prevail for real estate and why possession systems prevail for low-value mobile goods. Path dependencies may explain why many legal systems did not develop title systems for high value, not too frequently transferred, and relatively durable mobile goods (e.g. cars) (Bouckaert and De Geest, 1998). Miceli perceives another determinant for the choice for a filing system. A possession rule cannot signal shared ownership and other multiple rights on one asset. Such rights cannot be visualised by possession (Miceli, 1997). Arruñada has a similar view concerning abstract rights, i.e. rights which exist only conceptually but are not actually practiced in a visually perceivable way. Only a title system allows such rights to be operational (Arruñada, 2003, 4). Arrunãda perceives another cost of title systems. Such systems are often set up for, or at least allow, closer control on the wealth of citizens and will ease fiscal collection. In how far this might lead to predatory taxation depends on the people’s capacity to control their government and impede excessive taxation (Arruñada, 2003, 5). Moreover, publicity about the wealth of citizens might attract rent seekers and criminals in low security countries (Arruñada, 2003, 5).

Title systems and recordation of interests 197

Arruñada also raises the question whether title systems and recordation require a territorial monopoly. As far as the certainty of the transaction between the parties is concerned, there is no need for such a monopoly. Parties should be able to choose on open markets by which instance and through which type of evidence they are willing to give their transaction more certainty. The costs of their choice are fully internalized. For this reason the oligopoly of the notaries public in many countries should be contested from efficiency concerns. The transaction between parties can, however, involve rights and interests of third parties. As they are not involved in the choice of the drafter of the conveyance and the way it is drafted, externalisation of costs is possible in this case. For this reason the established territorial monopolies of recording and registration systems, recording data on the transactions on real estate, mortgages and other security rights, even on mobile goods, can be defended on efficiency grounds. Also systems, which allow free choice at first sight and seem to contradict this argument, rely on single authorities when rights of third parties are involved. For the registers of financial assets the best practice seems to consist of having a single clearing agency and depository. For Internet Domains there is only one register for each top-level domain. The users can, however, freely choose among ‘registrars’. Protection for third parties ex post is provided by enforcing the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) that applicants have to accept ex ante. According to UDRP disputes are not decided by ‘registrars’ but by a panel of arbitrators approved by The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) (Arruñada, 2003, 15–16).

4.Registration or recording system

As mentioned before title systems belong either to the type of a recording system or to the type of a registration system.

Under a recording system the only aim of recordation in the registers is to give public notice of a transfer or to the vesting of a right or an interest, by which the transfer or the vested right can be given effect to third parties. The transfer or the vesting of the right occurs through a contract, either made up by the parties themselves or drafted by an official, such as a notary public. Suppose A is the mortgagor and B the mortgagee. The mortgage is vested by an act, drafted by a notary public, as required in many civil law countries. Suppose A sells the mortgaged asset to C. Does C have to tolerate the mortgage on his asset and eventually be submitted to foreclosure when A, the former owner, defaults on his loan? The answer depends on the recordation. When the mortgage is recorded at the moment of the transfer from A to C, C has to tolerate the mortgage for he was able to check its existence at the registry. When not, the mortgage has no effect

198 Property law and economics

for him. The ‘opposability’ towards third parties, effectuated by registry, does not entail anything about the validity of the recorded rights or interests. The recordation is not constitutive but merely declaratory. The recordation merely signals that parties expressed their will to transfer a right or to vest a right or interest. The recordation does not provide exclusive evidence about the validity of title. The registrar in a recording system has a merely passive role. The registry accepts the conveyances, drafted by the parties or by other officials without effectuating a search of possible legal defects. As a consequence the recordation does not result in a purge of possible defects of the title. Suppose A conveys a real estate to B and the act of conveyance is registered within a recording system. C, however, claims to be the true owner and files a successful claim to the court. C will obtain a valid title while B can obtain, depending on circumstances (e.g. good faith) damages from A. For C a property rule applies, for B only a liability rule (Arruñada, 2003, 13). As mentioned before the recording system prevails in most civil law countries, influenced by the French civil code (France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Portugal and most Latin American countries) but also in most states of the USA (Garro, 2004, 55).

Under a registration system the aim of recordation is more thorough: recordation results in the constitution of a valid title. This means that a transfer or vesting of a right has only full legal effect at the moment of the recordation. In Germany for instance the sale of land occurs through the phases of consent (‘Einigung’), official conveyance by a notary public (‘Grundstückskaufvertrag’) and registration in the ‘Grundbuch’ (‘Eintragung’) (Garro, 2004, 53). Unlike recording systems the recordation results in a constitutive effect. The registrar is supposed to make a search into possible defects of the title. In case such defects are not found the title is purged and a valid title is awarded. Suppose A transfers land to B and the transfer is duly recorded under a registration system. C, though, files a claim against A and B. Even when the right of the seller (A) is overruled by the court the buyers’ right (B) is protected by the certificate of the registrar. B enjoys the protection of a property rule while C can eventually claim damages either against A or against the registrar. C is at most protected only by a liability rule.

The registration system operates in Germany and countries influenced by German civil law (Austria, Switzerland), in England and Wales since 1925, in the states under the Torrens system (Australia, western Canadian provinces, some states in the USA, several African and Asian countries) (Garro, 2004, 44, 55).

As the difference has serious legal consequences, law-and-economics literature spent some attention to the efficiency of the choice between the two types.

Title systems and recordation of interests 199

Miceli and Sirmans argue that an efficient title system should create proper incentives for landowners to invest in capital improvements prior to the appearance of adverse claims and provide compensation for wrongfully injured parties. A registration system satisfies this requirement as it stimulates ex post-efficiency by allocating the land to the highest valuing user. One may assume that land tenure involves an increase of subjective valuation of land above market value. By awarding the land to the current holder and compensating the claims of the legitimate holder at market value the value of land is maximized with regard to the enhancements that have been made previously by the holder. Registration also provides incentives for efficient investment in land ex ante by the landowner (Miceli and Sirmans, 1995a; Miceli and Turnbull, 1997).

A recording system on the other hand seems more likely to meet the requirements of ex ante efficiency as the risk of future expropriation will provide landowners with an incentive to optimalize information on the validity of the title prior to investment. Owners, faced with the risk of expropriation will desire protection of their reliance interests through insurance. Ex ante efficiency is enhanced under a recording system by title insurance. Profit incentives of these companies will enforce efficiency in the title examination process, which extends beyond the reach of a governmentally administered registration indemnity fund, where the profit incentive is lacking. Miceli and Turnbull conclude that the recording system may have an advantage over the registration system (Miceli and Turnbull, 1997).

Arruñada researched the relationship between the number of rights in rem, allowed by the numerus clausus of the property right system and the prevailing title system. The prediction is that the number will be relatively low under a registration system as many rights in rem would render the task of the registrar, the final judge on possible claims, very complex. The number will be higher under a recording system as the costs of the complexity, following from this, will be shared between the recording instances and the courts, deciding ex post on the validity of titles. This prediction seems to be confirmed by an econometric model, involving data of 42 jurisdictions (Arruñada, 2003, 8–10). This conclusion could be challenged by the analysis of Hansmann and Kraakman, arguing that the numerus clausus does not reduce as such the complexity in the legal system, as the numerus clausus consists of abstract categories of rights, of which the concrete elements may vary considerably (Hansmann and Kraakman, 2002, 399).

In his cost-comparison of the two systems Arruñada starts from the classical position that the recording system is more cost-efficient while the registration system is more effective.

200 Property law and economics

Concerning the higher cost-efficiency of the recording system Arruñada admits that many minor defects of title, which are not worth being purged, are insured either by the user or by his title insurer. Under a registration system these minor defects can result in hold-out situations. This efficiency advantage should, however, be nuanced, because competing title insurance systems trigger duplicate efforts of registering, and yield less economics of scale. On the suppliers’ side, also the efficiency advantages, linked with the profit incentive of the private title insurance companies should be nuanced as this sector is submitted to strong regulation concerning prices and entry barriers, which endangers the competitive level.

Concerning the higher effectiveness of the registration system, Arruñada admits that it provides a strong protection of title for the good faithacquirers. Registration systems can nevertheless be highly inadequate. This depends on a variety of factors. Sometimes their performance is weak due to fixed salary bureaucracy (e.g. Cook County, Puerto Rico). When staff is paid out by the profits of his office performance seems to be higher. The slowness of the search by the registration office may create additional uncertainty and necessitate again title insurance. Finally, incompleteness of the scope of registration can undermine the credibility of the registration system. When some rights in re are not within this scope, the effectiveness of the system is undermined as users have to rely on additional searches. The incompleteness may be due to opposition by the conveyance market and by the courts. The latter may be tempted to deny the conclusiveness of the registration in order to protect their own competence. The latter is the case in the USA but not in Germany as judges are involved in the Gründbuchsystem (Arruñada, 2003, 18–20).

Baker, Miceli, Sirmans and Turnbull developed research on the optimal title search under recording systems in the USA (Baker et al., 2002). Although the aim of their research is not on efficiency comparison between recording and registration systems, the results of their research strengthen the efficiency argument in favour of the recording system. Under recording systems rules are developed on optimal search length. When this optimal search is matched and chain of title is established, claims stretching beyond the required search period are considered as extinguished, so that the optimal search period has an effect similar to a limitation statute. Guidelines on optimal search are provided statutorily by Marketable Title Acts or practically by local bars and insurers. In the model agents pursue title search until the marginal costs of search become higher than the benefits in terms of reduction of uncertainty. The model involves determinants such as the value of land, the next best investment in land, the land development rate. The empirical analysis carried out about the optimal search of title rules in 47 states, points to the efficiency of the search length. As

Title systems and recordation of interests 201

a consequence such rules act as substantive palliatives for the apparent defects of recording systems.

Bibliography

Arruñada, Benito (2003) ‘Property Enforcement as Organized Consent’, 19 Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 401.

Arruñada, Benito and Garoupa, Nuno (2005), ‘The Choice of Titling System in Land’, 48

Journal of Law and Economics, 709.

Baird, Douglas G. (1983), ‘Notice Filing and the Problem of Ostensible Ownership’, 12

Journal of Legal Studies, 53–67.

Baird, Douglas G. and Jackson, Thomas H. (1984), ‘Information, Uncertainty, and the Transfer of Property’, 13 Journal of Legal Studies, 299–320.

Baker, M., Miceli, Thomas J., Sirmans, C.F., Turnbull, Geoffrey K. (2002), ‘Optimal Title Search’, 30 Journal of Legal Studies, 139–158.

Bouckaert, B. and De Geest, G. (1998), ‘The Economic Functions of Possession and Limitation Statutes’, in Ott., C. and von Wangenheim, G., Essays in Law and Economics IV, Antwerpen and Apeldoorn, Maklu, 151–168.

Bowles, Roger A. and Phillips, Jennifer (1977), ‘Solicitors’ Remuneration: A Critique of Recent Developments in Conveyancing’, 40 Modern Law Review, 639–650.

Calderon, J, (2003), ‘The Formalization of Property in Peru 2001–2002: the case of Lima’, 28

Habitat International, 289–300.

Cooter, Robert D. (1991), ‘Inventing Market Property: The Land Courts of Papua New Guinea’, 25 Law and Society Review, 759–801.

Cooter, Robert D. (1992), ‘Organization as Property: Economic Analysis of Property Law and Privatization’, in Clague, Christopher and Rausser, Gordon (eds), The Emergence of Market Economies in Eastern Europe, Oxford, Blackwell, 77–97.

De Soto, Hernando (2000), The Mystery of Capital. Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, New York, Basic Books.

Ellickson, R. (1986), ‘Adverse Possession and Perpetuities Law: Two Dents in the Libertarian Model of Property Rights’, 64 Washington University Law Quarterly, 723–737.

Epstein, Richard A. (1979), ‘Possession as the Root of Title’, 13 Georgia Law Review, 1221 ff. Field, E. (2003a), ‘Entitled to Work: Urban Property Rights and Labor Supply in Peru’, Research Program in Development Studies, Princeton University, Working Paper no.

220.

Field, E. (2003b), ‘Property Rights and Household Time Allocation in Urban Squatter Communities: Evidence from Peru’, Harvard University, Working Paper.

Field, E. and Torero, M. (2003), ‘Do Property Titles Increase Access to Credit? Evidence from Peru’, Harvard University, Working paper.

Garro, A.M. (2004), ‘Recordation of Interests in Land’, International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Volume VI: Property and Trust, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck.

Goldberg, Michael A. and Horwood, Peter J. (1987), ‘The Costs of Buying and Selling Houses: Some Canadian Evidence’, 10 Research in Law and Economics, 143–159.

Hansmann, H. and Kraakman, R. (2002), ‘Property, Contract, and Verification: The Numerus Clausus Problem and the Divisibility of Rights’, 31 Journal of Legal Studies, 373–420.

Helmholz, Richard H. (1983), ‘Adverse Possession and Subjective Intent’, 61 Washington University Law Quarterly, 331–358.

Janczyk, Joseph T. (1977), ‘An Economic Analysis of the Land Title Systems for Transferring Real Property’, 6 Journal of Legal Studies, 213–233.

Janczyk, Joseph T. (1979), ‘Land Title Systems, Scale of Operations, and Operating and Conversion Costs’, 8 Journal of Legal Studies, 569–583.

Jansen, K. and Roquas, E. (1998), ‘Modernizing Insecurity: The Land Titling Project in Honduras’, Development and Exchange, Vol. 29, 81–106.

ILD (2006), ‘Dead capital in 12 Latin American Countries’, www.ild.org.pe.

202 Property law and economics

Kaser, Max, Das Römische Privatrecht (2 vol.: I, 2nd ed., München 1971; II: 2e ed., München 1975).

Kennedy, Duncan (1981), ‘Cost-Benefit of Entitlement Problems: A Critique’, 33 Stanford Law Review, 387–445.

Merrill, T. (1986), ‘Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Adverse Possession’, 79 Northwestern University Law Review, 1122–1154.

Miceli, Thomas J. (1997), Economics of the Law, New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Miceli, Thomas J. and Sirmans, C.F. (1995a), ‘The Economics of Land Transfer and Title Insurance’, 10 Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 81–88.

Miceli, Thomas J. and Sirmans, C.F. (1995b), ‘An Economic Theory of Adverse Possession’,

15 International Review of Law and Economics, 162–173.

Miceli, Thomas J. and Turnbull, G.K. (1997), ‘Land Title System and Incentives for Development’, 14th Annual Conference of the European Association of Law and Economics, University of Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain.

Miceli, Thomas, J., Sirmans, C.F. and Turnbull, G.K. (1998), ‘Title Assurance and Incentives for Efficient Land Use’, 6(3) European Journal of Law and Economics, 305–322.

Morris Guerinoni, F. (2004), ‘La Formalizaçion de propriedad en el Peru: develando el misterio’, Commision para la formalizaçion de la Propriedad Informal (COFOPRI).

Schechter, Dan S. (1988), ‘Judicial Lien Creditors versus Prior Unrecorded Transferees of Real Property: Rethinking the Goals of the Recording System and Their Consequences’,

62 Southern California Law Review, 105–186.

204 Property law and economics

as collateral. Unlike other property, however, slaves sometimes bear responsibility for their behavior, receive an education, and buy their own freedom.

Slavery has features in common with other forms of coerced labor, such as debt bondage, indenture, peonage, serfdom, and corveé (statute) labor (Domar, 1970; Bloch, 1975; Kolchin, 1987; Bush, 1996). Yet slavery is a species of servitude set apart: slaves typically have been aliens with minimal freedom of action, permanently deprived of the title to their own human capital and of the right to raise their own children, and often with no higher authority than their masters. Orlando Patterson put it plainly (1982, p. 5): the slave is a socially dead person.

The early history of slavery

Slavery probably developed after civilization turned from hunting to pastoral societies: agriculture brought specialization of tasks and opportunities for exploiting another’s labor. Ancient Sumerian, Phoenician, Hebrew, Babylonian, and Egyptian societies used slaves to tend flocks, work fields and mines, and help with domestic chores (Jones, 1956). Moses Finley (1961) made the provocative argument, however, that the preclassical world actually was one without any ‘free’ men: just as the Greeks invented individual freedom, so too did they invent chattel slavery.

Slavery flourished in the classical period, predominantly in cities open to commercial exchange (Westermann, 1943; Finley, 1961 and 1987). Rarely was the Greek a slave in his own city. Greek slaves worked in mines, quarries, fields, handicrafts, and domestic, police, and secretarial work; skilled slaves often lived apart from their masters. A unique feature of Greek society was benefit clubs that lent slaves money to buy their freedom.

Rome inherited the slave trade; slaves comprised about 30 per cent of the population in Rome’s heyday. Roman slaves enjoyed limited freedoms

– they could acquire property, schooling, and, unlike Greek slaves, citizenship upon manumission (Phillips, 1985; Watson, 1987).

Slavery declined – but did not end – with the decline of Rome (Meltzer, 1993). The word ‘slave’ itself derived from the most numerous ethnic group in the medieval trade in human beings – Slavs. The Germanic tribes held slaves, sometimes using long hair as an identifying mark. With the emergence of Islam along the Arabian peninsula, religious wars generated large slave populations, mostly used for domestic and military service. William the Conqueror ended the export of English slaves, but serfdom did not replace domestic slavery in England until about 1200. Scandinavians held and traded thralls until the Swedish king declared all offspring of Christian slaves free in 1335. But slavery continued unabated in Italy and the Iberian peninsula: Genoa and Venice had active slave markets in the thirteenth