Curacao Organization Under INVESTIGATION for MONEY LAUNDERING: Kadaster en Openbare Registers Curaçao for CORRUPTION
Kadaster en Openbare Registers Curaçao
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Today i am going to provide some more information on the ongoing Investigation which are on going here in Curacao, and the person who is in charge of these Investigation to expose all the Corruption in several of the Government of Curacao.
I will try my best to explain, many brothers and Sisters on the Islands don't see the TRUTH yet what is going on, but soon they will.
Have a blessed day
Link: http://www.kadaster.cw/index.php
organization / history
The development of the Land Registry and Mortgage System in Curaçao
The foundation for the Mortgage System was laid with the introduction of the Civil Code in the Netherlands Antilles as of May 1, 1869, marking the advent of a new form of transfer. The concept for ownership of real property was the allodial ownership that was derived from the Dutch West India Company.This was also the moment when the function of land and mortgage registrar came into being and was laid for a new fashion or land registry in Curaçao.
By Decree of the Governor of 11 November 1935, no. 1603,
the Land and Mortgage Registry System was established in Curaçao, which was the head of the Land Registry Office and was combined with the function of Land and Mortgage Registrar. Henceforward, it became obligatory to draw up a certificate of measurement (later an extract plan for the entire country, before the parcel of land can be transferred).
the Land and Mortgage Registry System was established in Curaçao, which was the head of the Land Registry Office and was combined with the function of Land and Mortgage Registrar. Henceforward, it became obligatory to draw up a certificate of measurement (later an extract plan for the entire country, before the parcel of land can be transferred).
As of 1 January 1955 the tasks of the Land Registry and Mortgage System in Curaçao were separated once again and a separate Mortgage Registrar was appointed. This separation has not been beneficial to the organization.Both offices share the same objective and are interdependent for the day-to-day provision of services. In practice it was necessary to perform the duties by means of mail, fax and telephone contact.
In 1984, with the separation of Aruba, these duties were formally decentralized by the National Ordinance on the Transfer of Responsibilities (Off Gazette 1984, 95).
As of 1 February 2001 the Land and Mortgage Registry system was clustered again and simultaneously transferred to the Island Territory of Curaçao and placed administratively under a new privatized public organization called Curaçao Land Registry Office and Public Registers.
The newly privatized organization has developed into a very professional organization, which is making use of GIS technology and on the market, in order to accurately define the legal status.
real right
Court ruling to lift an attachment
LJN: AA5960, Dutch Supreme Court R98 / 151HR
The facts:
In this case, the following facts and circumstances. On May 24, 1995, Anton bought two pieces of real estate from a person named Bernard. Pursuant to the contract of sale, delivery was effected before December 31, 1995. Bernard, who had departed from his country leaving substantial tax debts, issued a blank power of attorney to Anton in December 1995, stating that Anton had already paid the purchase price. In connection with Anton's tax debts the Tax Collector levied an executory attachment against Anton on the aforesaid real property. At that moment delivery had not been effected to Anton.
The facts:
In this case, the following facts and circumstances. On May 24, 1995, Anton bought two pieces of real estate from a person named Bernard. Pursuant to the contract of sale, delivery was effected before December 31, 1995. Bernard, who had departed from his country leaving substantial tax debts, issued a blank power of attorney to Anton in December 1995, stating that Anton had already paid the purchase price. In connection with Anton's tax debts the Tax Collector levied an executory attachment against Anton on the aforesaid real property. At that moment delivery had not been effected to Anton.
In response to this, Anton commenced summary proceedings with the Court of First Instance requesting that by provisionally enforceable judgment, the Court shall be ordered. By judgment enforceable by anticipation dated 12 June 1996 The Court of First Instance has been ordered by Anton ordering.On June 13, 1996, the entry of the attachment was removed from the public registers. Subsequent, Anton, owned by the power of attorney granted by Bernard, has been released on June 19, 1996. But the State lodged an appeal with the Joint Court of Justice of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba against the interlocutory judgment of June 12, 1996. On appeal the court, delivered judgment on June 17, 1997, overturned the judgment of the Court of First Instance, to the extent that the lifting of the attachment had been ordered. The Court's finding, in briefly summarized, was that Bernard was the legal owner of the property, and that the obligatory rights of Anton do not bar the legal validity of the attachment.
By virtue of this judgment the Tax Collector is removed from the public registers to be revoked. On July 27, 1997, Anton sold one of the real properties to a third party. In order to enable the delivery of this property, he requested the Tax Collector to lift the revived attachment (once again). The Tax Collector refused to do this. In order for this refusal to be held in the Netherlands, the government of the Tax Collector's order must be ordered by the Court of First Instance.
Court of First Instance
The Court of First Instance disallowed Anton's action. By virtue of the ruling of the Supreme Court dated February 23, 1996, an attachment that has been lifted by a provisionally enforceable judgment, with respect to the rights of law. At the time the attachment had been lifted. All this, or course, on condition that this is a third party must have been in good faith, and in the Court's opinion Anton can not be considered as such.
Anton filed an appeal with the Joint Court of Justice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance. The grounds in the field of justice are the right to be heard in the first instance of justice. honored upon the revival of the attachment.
COURT OF APPEAL
An attachment lifted by a provisionally enforceable judgment will be revived by reversal of that judgment on appeal, with the proviso that changes in the legal status of the attached property must be honored in the period between the lifting and the reversal (Dutch Supr. Feb. 1966, NJ 1996,434). In this case the ownership of the real properties was transferred by Bernard to Anton in the period between the lifting and the reversal. As a consequence, they were removed from the assets of the garnishee, so that the attachment could not be revived. It is not true that this effect can only be achieved by a transfer to the acquirer in good faith. This would not be consistent with the provisional enforceability of the lifting of the attachment. It is furthermore so that a provisional provisional enforceable judgment may be imposed on the judgment of the Court of Justice (Supreme Court, January 20, 1995, NJ 1995, 413).
SUPREME COURT
The lifting of an attachment by the Court is a constitutive decision, which calls a new legal status into being. The main rule for constitutive judgments is that they only have the final status. The time when the attachment is considered to be lifted is the moment of judgment, has become final and conclusive. Up to that point in time the attachment retains its effective force.In case the judgment terminating the attachment is overturned on appeal, the attachment will remain in effect without interruption. But the court may declare the lifting of the attachment to be enforceable by anticipation. In that case the attachment is going to be lifted from the moment the judgment is delivered and will be lifted in case an ordinary legal remedy is made against the court decision. If, again, the judgment is declared to be provisionally enforceable, is reversed on appeal, the attachment will be in the status of the attached property that must be respected in the period between the lifting and the reversal.
In case of revival, the attaching party will have the opportunity to recover from the situation. This risk can be limited by requesting the service. In addition, the attaching party can of course oppose the provisionally enforceable judgment. In this way the means of recourse is applied to the lifting of the attachment. Though it was clear that Anton wanted to be lifted in order to enable him to deliver the goods, the Island Tax Collector refrained from taking any of those actions.
In case of revival, the attaching party will have the opportunity to recover from the situation. This risk can be limited by requesting the service. In addition, the attaching party can of course oppose the provisionally enforceable judgment. In this way the means of recourse is applied to the lifting of the attachment. Though it was clear that Anton wanted to be lifted in order to enable him to deliver the goods, the Island Tax Collector refrained from taking any of those actions.
Essence
In case a person's property has been attached, that person, in his capacity as entitled party, or alienate or mortgage said property, the void vis á vis the attaching party. As such, the attachment continues to follow the property. But if, for some reason, the attachment is lifted by the court, and if the judgment is declared enforceable with immediate effect, then the entitled party is at liberty to alienate his property. If the judgment is removed later on, the alienation carried out by him, will remain valid. This may be prevented by the court of appeal by the court to be provisionally enforceable.
Obtaining or extinctive prescription
LJN: AT 8240, Supr. Crt. C04 / 118HR
(The Antoonan Civil Code and the essence is also valid in this case)
LJN: AT 8240, Supr. Crt. C04 / 118HR
(The Antoonan Civil Code and the essence is also valid in this case)
Case study
Henk and Bert are neighbors. Henk is owner of lot A since November 3, 1998. Bert is owner of lot B since December 9, 1971. The issue in this case is whether Bert has by prescription acquired the ownership of the strip of land, measuring 325m² in total, which is part of the cadastral lot belonging to Henk. It is an established fact that Bert has been using this strip of land since 1971. Henk has raised the argument that this is not a case of acquisitive prescription since Bert has always done conveyance of February 18, 1981. The deed of conveyance of 18th February 1981, the legal predecessors of Henk acquired the parcel of land, states, inter alia. any lease, but insofar as part of the driveway is concerned, the property is accepted with the benefit of the benefit of Messrs Comar (owner of lot B at that time). further description ....... ".
Bert contends that he has exercised possessory actions as far back as in 1971, with respect to the strip of land, because a sand wall was erected and the land was paved with rubble and gravel. According to Bert's contentions, the period of prescription had already started since 1971 and the prescription has never been interrupted. In order to defend the act or 1981, Bert presented witnesses testifying that in 1981 Bert went to the owner of lot A back then, to ask if he could that he does not have to pay rent.
Henk and Bert are neighbors. Henk is owner of lot A since November 3, 1998. Bert is owner of lot B since December 9, 1971. The issue in this case is whether Bert has by prescription acquired the ownership of the strip of land, measuring 325m² in total, which is part of the cadastral lot belonging to Henk. It is an established fact that Bert has been using this strip of land since 1971. Henk has raised the argument that this is not a case of acquisitive prescription since Bert has always done conveyance of February 18, 1981. The deed of conveyance of 18th February 1981, the legal predecessors of Henk acquired the parcel of land, states, inter alia. any lease, but insofar as part of the driveway is concerned, the property is accepted with the benefit of the benefit of Messrs Comar (owner of lot B at that time). further description ....... ".
Bert contends that he has exercised possessory actions as far back as in 1971, with respect to the strip of land, because a sand wall was erected and the land was paved with rubble and gravel. According to Bert's contentions, the period of prescription had already started since 1971 and the prescription has never been interrupted. In order to defend the act or 1981, Bert presented witnesses testifying that in 1981 Bert went to the owner of lot A back then, to ask if he could that he does not have to pay rent.
Relevant articles
This case study addresses the acquisition by means of an extended version of the Civil Code. possession was not based on good faith.
Another relevant article is article 3: 306 of the Civil Code which provides that the rights of 20 years. Or equal importance in this regard, is article 3: 111 of the Civil Code which provides that a person has a good relationship. same title, as long as no change has been effected, or as a consequence of a person's claim.
Another relevant article is article 3: 306 of the Civil Code which provides that the rights of 20 years. Or equal importance in this regard, is article 3: 111 of the Civil Code which provides that a person has a good relationship. same title, as long as no change has been effected, or as a consequence of a person's claim.
Final decision
Bert did not succeed in proving that, until 18 February 1981, he had not used the comic strip of land under the title of rent. The witness statement that, in 1981, Bert approached the then owner of fate A asking him if he could not be interpreted differently than that. Bert was apparently of the opinion, then, that he was not the owner of the strip of land. Once a person has been started, by virtue of a legal ownership, by the owner of the property, The House of Representatives is being used, and that is the right thing to do (article 3: 111 Civil Code) and that it should be assumed that Bert had used the litigious strip of land as renter until 1981. so that we can not speak about ownership.The consequence of this is that when Henk initiated the action against Bert, the period of 20 years which is required for the possibility of prescription, had not yet been completed. A current prescription, if any, was interrupted by the serving of the subpoena.
Comments
Post a Comment