Bill of sale

[Irish Rover]

My part 1 certificate specifically states that it is not proof of ownership!

The CERTIFATE is not.

 

[Buck Turgidson]

The CERTIFATE is not.

But the bill of sale is.

 

[Tranona]

But the bill of sale is.

Strictly speaking no - it is "Title" which is not the same as ownership, although in most cases the 2 are the same. Examples of where it is not include club owned boats, boats owned by trusts, boats owned by limited companies. In all those cases beneficial ownership is by persons other than those registering the title. This is what makes it difficult to trace the real owners of Russian oligarchs boats for example.

 

[KompetentKrew]

I disagree with you and partly with T ...

The matter needs clarification from the Pt1 Registry .... if the boat has been removed from Pt1 ... then why the 64 / 64 BoS ..... there's no need for that sort of wording. A simple BoS would suffice.... assuming that the owner of the 1 share was cleared from ownership.

But the wording 64 / 64 is either seller trying to look clever and misunderstanding the share declaration and not still Pt1 - or boat is still Pt1 and needs to be clarified by Register.

People here can post all they like and say this and that ... the point is to contact Pt1 and clear it up from the registry properly. While making sure Seller / Broker are aware of their 'gaff' !!

I can't believe that the boat is on the Part 1 register because surely title would then be clear?

If the boat is on the Part 1 and the only name on the certificate is @pandos then I would think that full ownership of the boat was transferred to @pandos at the time of the sale.

And I think you're right that the sixty-fourths on the bill of sale are just an affectation in this case.

I had to look this up, but the MCA bill of sale states that title does not transfer "until the appropriate Bill(s) of Sale has been recorded with the Registry, and a new Certificate issued" and that Bill of Sale PDF seems to require the seller to declare that they have the right to make the sale "free from encumbrances". (I assume this must fall on the seller?)

I think that if some 1/64th owner was subsequently to turn up then practically they would have to take it up with whoever sold the boat to @pandos.

If the boat was worth many millions then the 1/64th owner (assuming they exist) then maybe they would litigate and argue that they remain 1/64th beneficial owner and they must be paid off or the boat sold in order for them to get their equity back (same as an unmarried couple splitting up and selling the house they own) but it's not worth arguing over a £20,000 or £50,000 boat.

 

[KompetentKrew]

The registry would not accept just the current BoS but would require at least the previous one so the inconsistency would be questioned.

You seem to be right that OP can't just register the boat on the Part 1 now to make their title clear but it looks like it's just 5 years of bills of sale that are required, not the current and previous. So presumably a previous bill of sale is not needed if you've had the boat 5 years.

I don't mean to be argumentative and I know this doesn't really help OP, just maybe worth saying in case anyone else is thinking of registering.

 

[Tranona]

You seem to be right that OP can't just register the boat on the Part 1 now to make their title clear but it looks like it's just 5 years of bills of sale that are required, not the current and previous. So presumably a previous bill of sale is not needed if you've had the boat 5 years.

I don't mean to be argumentative and I know this doesn't really help OP, just maybe worth saying in case anyone else is thinking of registering.

He has just bought it - although you would not know unless you had read his other posts.

Agree he could register it after 5 years but that would be unlikely to stop a claim from the holder of the other share. He is also in Ireland so unlikely to use Part 1 if he does want registration.

 

[KompetentKrew]

He has just bought it - although you would not know unless you had read his other posts.

Agree he could register it after 5 years but that would be unlikely to stop a claim from the holder of the other share.

Yes, indeed. This is stated in the first post of this thread, which I have read, and the rest of your reply was exactly what my comment was intended to concede to you. I didn't know he lived in Ireland though. I do apologise for being unclear..

 

[pandos]

Boat is not and never was on Part 1.

It and I are in Ireland. We have no SSR. Our part 1 requires proof of ownership right back to the original purchaser.

Spoke to the last owner and the second last owners. Both decent honest men, so things are easy. There is an innocent explanation for the issue, although neither had spotted it.

Another Bill of sale is on its way which will note the transfer to my seller of the 64th share.. which he has already transferred to me and of which he was the beneficial owner.

Thanks for all of the inputs.
I'll update again when all is resolved and after I have a chance to research the legalities.

Afaik our law tends to favour equity whilst English law tends to lean more towards common law...so it might have been an interesting argument had an owner in England trie to recover a 64th of "our"boat..

Even more interesting if it sunk in a channel in the port and the " we owners " were being sued for the cost of removal...

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Boat is not and never was on Part 1.

It and I are in Ireland. We have no SSR. Our part 1 requires proof of ownership right back to the original purchaser.

Spoke to the last owner and the second last owners. Both decent honest men, so things are easy. There is an innocent explanation for the issue, although neither had spotted it.

Another Bill of sale is on its way which will note the transfer to my seller of the 64th share.. which he has already transferred to me and of which he was the beneficial owner.

Thanks for all of the inputs.
I'll update again when all is resolved and after I have a chance to research the legalities.

Afaik our law tends to favour equity whilst English law tends to lean more towards common law...so it might have been an interesting argument had an owner in England trie to recover a 64th of "our"boat..

Even more interesting if it sunk in a channel in the port and the " we owners " were being sued for the cost of removal...

That sounds like a positive and agreeable outcome, good news all round