It's the covenant...

The covenants I've dealt with usualy say '' or their successors''

 

The Senior family owned Barnsley Brewery, after multiple ownerships it now belongs to Heineken...it would be interesting to know if the covenant has passed down to them.

 

This is correct and takes a little bit of getting your head round. If Mr A in 1900 sells Mr B a piece of land but places a covenant on it in respect of Mr C who lives next door that they can't light a fire on a Sunday. All are now long dead (assuming Mr B isn't Brad Pitt from interview with the vampire). However, the covenant doesn't die with the people who made it. Matters to do with land vest in the current owner of that land. So if the people who have now bought Mr Bs land want to light a fire, they must get the permission of whoever now owns Mr C's land. About six months ago, I paid for land registry title deeds and maps and put the results on here. The mineral rights were a bit off for oakwell and to be honest, that could put a brake on development. Beyond that, I can't help thinking out new owners are 4 years in. Not bought the club, which would have cost 6 million less in league 1. Not spent a penny on anything. Perhaps if the club is in league one, they can re-negotiate a lower price to buy.

 

Maybe just maybe the covenant is just a smoke screen / excuse and all that's really happening is the 80% mob are trying to get the land on the cheap just like they delayed the purchase of the club in order to get the asking price reduced only this time the other parties aren't playing ball.

 

Surely the mineral rights are easily sorted. Say the club knock down the West Stand and find gold while digging the foundations for the new stand all they need to do is hand any gold they dig up over to the rights holders it shouldn't be an issue.

 

The legal position is a bit more nuanced. Mr C would need to be a party to the document in order for the covenant to be likely to be enforceable by his successors - if B covenants with A not to light a fire for the benefit of C, then C may be able to enforce, but his successors likely will not (assuming the covenant predates the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2000)

If C were a party to the document, then as the covenant predated 1925 it would need to expressly refer to C's successors in title in order for the benefit to pass with his land. After 1925 this would not be necessary - s.78 of the LPA 1925 would operate so as to automatically imply the "successors" bit and annex the covenant to the land.

 

Just as an aside. Is the option to buy the ground and surrounding land not effectively a right to purchase the shares in Oakwell Community Assets Limited? I wonder if the 80% group's lawyers were focused on the structure of that company rather than directly concerning themselves with the title deeds. It would be a lack of diligence, but you could see how there might be an assumption that the Council would have checked the title before becoming involved. The council however may well have had different motives.

 

So in summary, it's all Mr C's fault. He should have stuck to scoring worldies on Kirk Balk fields and wearing women's blouses.

 

my great grandparents were born in 1912, so in this scenario my Dad would be the grandchild. I was basing it on him living another 20 years and then adding the + 25 years to round it to 50.

 

And if you're acquiring a business would you not look into the history of it?

 

Its a simple solution. They can build a new stadium for BFC. Then when we all move they can then knock the new stadium down to build houses and shops. ;-)

 

Doesn't sound like it would.

 

Bloody Witches

 

I've tried to look into the senior family tree and found a guy senior (listed as a former brewer) who married francis in around 1890. Title registry mentions guy Francis senior which I took to be the man's full name but perhaps it means guy and Francis senior. If that's correct then at least two of their grandkids died in the 70s.

 

It perhaps wasn't a perfect example...Mr A could not place a Covenant on Mr C, unless he also owned Mr C's land. However if Mr A owned both B & C's land he could place the covenant.

Around the 1870's/80's it was owned by brothers Paul & Guy Senior, interestingly the 1871 census gives their address as Beevor Brewery.

 

So that means not long left on the covenant then?

 

I've just looked more and realised I made an error.

The tree that I can see (oooo it rhymes) had Seth who owned a brewery in Huddersfield, he had kids, 2 of them were guy and Paul. They set up their own brewery. Guy married a woman called Francis (who was commonly called fanny). Now I assumed that was the guy Francis senior mentioned in the covenant but I've made 2 errors. One is that it may have mentioned Francis guy senior not guy Francis senior and the other that it wasn't an amalgamation of both their names, Francis Guy Senior was the son of guy and Francis, he was born in 1872 and presumably it's he who is specifically named in the covenant. So the grand kids would be one layer further down

 

Wonder if the lawyers for PC made the same error!?

 

Yeah that’s the one I know about from JD. But doubt that anyone could have missed the existence of that in due diligence since it is/was fairly common knowledge