This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
French to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law: Contract(s) / Property purchase agreement
French term or phrase:en charge et en droit
Les acquéreurs souffriront et exerceront les servitudes en charge et en droit, concernant l’immeuble vendu, régulièrement inscrites au Registre Foncier, ainsi que toutes les restrictions du droit de propriété légalement dispensées de l’inscription.
SafeTex: "they all apply. You can't claim exemption from those you don't like, whether dominant, servient, positive or negative.... why rule them out?"
I didn't rule them out. A servient easement IS, by definition, either a positive or negative one (depending on what it requires you, the person burdened by the easement, to do). That's just not what this text says.
Saying "this means servient easement" does NOT mean "it's not a negative easement." Things have multiple facets. A sandwich can be food; a source of carbohydrates; maybe a meal; maybe a source of protein. If someone wrote "I just ate a sandwich, so I don't need any more carbs," that wouldn't tell you whether or not it had protein in it. And "servitude en charge" doesn't tell you whether the easement is pos. or neg.
Positive vs. negative isn't the right translation here -- not because they AREN'T positive or negative, but just because that is not what it's talking about. Our argument is like so:
SafeTex: "Why not translate 'carbs' as 'protein'?" Me: "Bc that's not what it means." SafeTex: "But why rule out protein?" Me: "I'm not ruling it out. It just doesn't say that." SafeTex: "BUT PROTEIN!"
Germaine understood the dilemma and actually suggested a compromise in this very discussion if you care to check.
I don't think this was a compromise to keep the peace (maybe that too) but more because she realized that in all probability, the writer was referring to all types of easements.
Because, whatever easements there are, they all apply. You can't claim exemption from those you don't like, whether dominant, servient, positive or negative. And positive and negative easements nearly always exist like "view" so why rule them out?
Can't be bothered to answer the rest about the doctor.
You wrote: "Have you still not learned to drop the arrogant "I'm a lawyer, you're not" line?"
Would you say that to a doctor? Let's say someone posted a French medical term that some people took a stab at translating, and then a bilingual doctor/translator came into the discussion to explain that the term referred to (let's say) a particular phenomenon seen in chemotherapy, and that in English the phenomenon was called X.
Then you and Adrian insisted over and over that it was actually called Y, or at least certainly not X. And the doctor explained, perhaps with occasional unkind but understandable flashes of impatience, what the difference between X and Y was, and a native speaker, Germaine, confirmed that it was X... but you kept insisting that the doctor must be wrong!
Would you do that?
Or are you capable of recognizing that sometimes by virtue of their training and profession, people know more about a topic in their own field than you do?
If you're capable of recognizing that, I'm curious why you insist on not recognizing it here -- even in the face of a native speaker saying I'm right! -- and accuse me of "arrogance" for simply trying to answer Eren's question.
Have you still not learned to drop the arrogant "I'm a lawyer, you're not" line?
You have shot down so many answers recently that have been chosen by the majority of translators (or the asker) as right.
A very recent example would be "avocat constitué près de".
The problem is not the discussions themselves but your continual flak of disagrees to answers that are (probably) right or at least deserve due consideration, accompanied with remarks like "WRONG", "INCORRECT" (your bold this time, not mine).
Ben buradayim - here I am in Turkish! It might be a good idea now to cogitate over the closely reasoned answers and arguably erudite European vs. North American arguments, closing the question one way or the other or no way at all. Thanks and Teşekkür ederim.
SafeTex, I will try one last time to explain this.
Yes, easements are in a sense "reciprocal" (not quite the accurate word, but they do have effects on both parties). However, that's not the only fact about them. There are others, such as:
1. When looking at 2 neighbors: who is burdened by this easement, and who is benefited? (IOW, to whom is this easement "en charge" vs. to whom is it "en droit").
2. When looking only at the burdened party, HOW are they burdened: are they required to do something, or to NOT do something? (IOW: is it a positive or negative easement?).
I hope that's clear. If it's not, please remember that if an astrophysicist, neurologist, chemical engineer, car mechanic or pastry chef, etc., were explaining some subtle nuance in their field, there would be a point past which I could not follow them.
And when lawyers explain subtle nuances in their field, there is a point when non-lawyers cannot follow them (that point is different for each non-lawyer, depending on their backgrounds, interests, etc.).
There's no shame in it. But if, after reading the above and the rest of my discussion posts, you still don't get it, then we have reached that point.
"Positive and negative easements are BOTH burdens (your bold)
okay, it' s a way of looking at this but easements are normally reciprocal!
If we forget the very often used e.g. of access through another land and take instead the servitude de vue.
Do you think that Immeuble A has this burden but Immeube B opposite does not?
"Immeuble A is not only burdened by it but protected by it. This easement applies to BOTH buildings."
This is why the writer uses two verbs (souffriront et exerceront). He clearly means that there are NOT only burdens but reciprocal rights.
After that, we can debate the ins and outs but you should not have shot down the positive and negative easements answer as nearly all easements are reciprocal like how close you can build a chicken run to your neighbour's garden.
As a side note, I'm puzzled by your repeated references to having 50 years of experience, going back to 1969, in whatever legal topic is under discussion (here, real property law).
How do you have so much experience, when you were only admitted to the bar in 2000, and have since retired?
You asked below, "Am I right in now thinking that the "servient and dominant easements" refer to the land, and the positive and negative easements refer to the actions that you can perform on other's land or others can perform on your land"?"
No. You are wrong. I'm honestly glad you asked, though.
All easements refer to land and to the actions that the people affected can or cannot perform on them. The different terms identify (1) who is affected, (2) who benefits or is burdened, and (3) what the nature of the benefit or burden is.
For an explanation of what these terms refer to, please see my discussion post immediately below ("@SafeTex/Adrian: POSITIVE NEGATIVE").
Neither of you seem to grasp what I've said multiple times: Positive and negative easements are not the same thing as dominant and servient ones.
So, SafeTex, when I say "this is about dominant and servient easements," it does not contradict my previous statement that "this is NOT about positive and negative easements."
Positive and negative easements are BOTH burdens. A positive easement requires Owner A to do something for the benefit of A's neighbor; a negative one requires A to NOT do something, again for the benefit of A's neighbor. In both cases, A is burdened. They are BOTH "servitudes de charge" -- just different types of servitudes de charge.
Example: Owner A is subject to a positive easement ("you MUST let B walk across your yard") and a negative one ("you MUST NOT make any changes to your house that would obstruct B's view of the ocean").
Dominant and servient easements are, respectively, easements providing a benefit [dominant] and ones imposing a burden [servient]. Which is why "servient and dominant easements" = "servitudes en charge et en droit."
If A's land has a DE on it, A gets a benefit. If A's land has a SE on it, A bears a burden.
1. How the acquirer of an immoveable can "suffer" a negative easement?
2. Is the question about comparative law or translation? How can the target-readership modify the translation of these legal terms? Will your translation of "igname" be "potato" cause the reader is British and god forgive! he has no clue of what is a yam?
3. It seems that "servitudes en droit et en charge" is a Swiss expression. Why should UK's HM Land Registry be THE reference?
About the US/Can English v. BrE, you might be reasssured that: Pronunciation is the most striking difference between British English and the English in the U.S. and Canada, but there are also a number of differences in vocabulary and spelling, as well as slight differences in grammar. Yet on the whole, speakers of American, Canadian and British English have little or no difficulty understanding each other. https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/studentlearningsupport/re...
En passant, vous me pardonnerez, mais il me semble que certaines "reliable" transatlantic sources pourraient être plus fiables que le Grand Adrian...
Pls. forget the US/Can. ENG-only ideas of 'servient & dominant easements' for BrE – including Scots law - purposes. As Allegro comments, it is for the asker to cogitate over the target-readership.
After studying ENG land law at Uni. in the UK half a century ago, I clocked up 40 years of *practical conveyancing* experience in the City of London & Paris, inter alia, and those terms had never been used, esp. on Land or Charge Certificates issued by the UK’s HM Land Registry.
I suppose, next, we are going to be dished up a 'servant' of a 'dominatrix' of 'multi-use' / polyvalent land with 'reliable' Transatlantic sources quoted for the purpose.
Am I right in now thinking that the "servient and dominant easements" refer to the land, and the positive and negative easements refer to the actions that you can perform on other's land or others can perform on your land"?
If so, doesn't the structure of the original question, "Les acquéreurs souffriront et exerceront..." give us the answer?
You can't "bear and exercise" land itself but you can bear the actions of others and exercise your own rights as actions (negative and positive easements)
Dominant tenant – tenant de fonds dominant (contexte) An easement owner is the "dominant tenant". Words and Phrases, Permanent Ed., 1940, vol. 13, (suppl. 1950), p. 66. PAJLO, Dictionnaire canadien de la common law : Droit des biens… 1997, p. 190.
Servient tenant – tenant de fonds servant (contexte) An easement is an incorporeal hereditament and is a privilege without a profit. Thus when A, the owner of a piece of land, has the right of compelling B, the owner of an adjoining piece of land, either to refrain from foing doing something on his (B's) land; or to allow A to do something on his (B's) land, then A is said to have an easement over B's land: A is called the dominant owner, and his land the dominant tenement; B is called the servient tenant, and his land the servient tenement. Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, 2e éd., 1977, p. 552. PAJLO, Dictionnaire canadien de la common law : Droit des biens…
Tenant (of land) (contexte) Strictly speaking, a tenant is a person who holds land ((...)). Cartwright, J. M., Glossary of Real Estate Law, Rochester (N. Y.)… Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law… http://www.juriterm.ca/
Voila. Servient and dominant are words describing tenements (land) in relation tio a specific servitude. Positive (giving a right or benefit) and negative (imposing a burden) are words relating to servitudes in general
There are no such parties either in US Am, Canadian or English Common Law. FWIW, these terms Google as dominant and servient tenements, plus Barron's US Am. law dictionary refers to dominant and servient estates and neither to easements nor the parties. They are, as Allegro intimates, the party burdened and the party benefit(t)ed.
"I agree: a servitude en droit is one that gives Landowner A a right or benefit (with respect to Landowner B's property), while a servitude en charge is one that imposes a burden on Landlowner A"
and
"So when you're buying land and you agree to exercer les servitudes en droit and souffrir les servitudes en charge that come with that land, you're agreeing to exercise the dominant easements and submit to the servient easements."
whereas BEFORE you said that:
"This ISN'T about negative/positive (a.k.a. affirmative) easements. Those both relate to something you (owner of the property subject to the easement) have to do:"
AllegroTrans, I agree: a servitude en droit is one that gives Landowner A a right or benefit (with respect to Landowner B's land: e.g., A's right to walk across B's land), while a servitude en charge imposes a burden on Landowner A (e.g., A has to let B walk across A's land).
That's what dominant and servient easements are. A dominant easement gives you a right or benefit (relating to someone else's land, e.g., the right to walk across it). A servient easement imposes a burden on you (by giving someone else rights relating to your land).
If Landowner A has a servitude en droit, then Landowner A is the dominant tenant with respect to that servitude. B is the servient tenant.
If Landowner A has a servitude en charge, then Landowner A is the servient tenant with respect to that servitude. B is the dominant tenant.
So when you're buying land and you agree to exercer les servitudes en droit and souffrir les servitudes en charge that come with that land, you're agreeing to exercise the dominant easements and submit to the servient easements.
Les États-Unis ont le même régime de droit: la common law (si je me souviens bien, seule la Louisiane est civiliste). So, it makes no difference at all. If asker wants European English and a fair translation, she should perhaps favour/favor Eliza's answer 1. Adrian's answer doesn't apply here, as this is not about easements only benefiting a dominant estate. Please, read the reference.
Et c’est exactement ce que laisse entendre la proposition d’Éliza « servient and dominant easements ».
Les acquéreurs de la propriété A souffrent les servitudes en charge - donc, les servitudes qui constituent une charge/grèvent la propriété A (i.e. dont A est le « fonds servant/servient estate ») - et exploitent les servitudes en droit – donc, les servitudes qui constituent un droit qui grève une propriété B (C, D,…) au profit de la propriété A (qui est alors le « fonds dominant/dominant estate »).
Je ne crois pas qu'il faille chercher plus loin. En tout cas, à lire différents textes, je ne vois vraiment pas qu'on parle ici d’un « legal easement (at law) » (le pendant serait alors un « equitable easement »), d’un « legal easement (by law) » (le pendant serait alors un « voluntary easement ») et encore moins d’un « statutory easement » - cf. http://www.juriterm.ca/.
You wrote: "You seem to be conflating dominant and servient tenements with positive and negative easements"
You seem to be having a reading comprehension problem. Am not going to repeat what I've already said; you can scroll down. Do let me know when you've read the link that shows you're wrong about positive and negative easements. I've posted it twice already, to no response from you. *shrug*
You seem to be conflating dominant and servient tenements with positive and negative easements. The latter are not dominant and servient, but positive and negative, depending which tenement (estate in the US/ piece of land) is burdened (en charge e.g. by local land charge) or benefit(t)ed. You yourself have contradicted your own answer:
'The EN terms used to distinguish servitudes en charge/en droit are dominant and servient. The dominant estate is Neighbor A who has the right to do something on Neighbor B's land (which is called the servient estate): '
This isn't about negative/positive (a.k.a. affirmative) easements. Those both relate to something you (owner of the property subject to the easement) have to do:
Positive (affirmative) easement- e.g. you have to let your neighbor drive across your property to reach theirs;
Since everyone here utterly failed to follow the clues I provided, I was finally FORCED to provide the answer myself (see below). You may address payment to me via Paypal :)
Enjoy this article, which says that when buying real estate in Switzerland, "Il faut dans tous les cas demander un extrait du Registre Foncier et voir les servitudes en charge, notée (C) sur le feuillet. Par exemple une servitude en charge de vue en faveur du voisin peut ruiner le rêve de surélévation de l’immeuble." https://www.bilan.ch/opinions/fabrice-strobino/achetez-les-y...
I do want to take a moment to acknowledge that SafeTex had the decency to remove his clearly incorrect proposed translation. Thanks, SafeTex.
"Servitudes and easements" is not fine, because an easement is a type of servitude, for god's sake ("In the United States there are three basic types of servitudes: easements, covenants, and profits" - https://www.britannica.com/topic/servitude-property-law).
What you're proposing would make about as much sense as saying, "This restaurant serves both food and sandwiches." And no, the sentence structure makes no difference to the fact that "duly and legally" is not remotely a correct translation of the source text.
Les acquéreurs souffriront et exerceront les servitudes en charge et en droit = Les acquéreurs souffriront les servitudes en charge et exerceront les servitudes en droit
servitudes en charge: charges (up)on land, servitude - Termium servitudes en droit: legal easement (at law) - Juriterm
…created a real charge or servitude upon l'île du Milieu… That the servitude consisted in suffering inroads from the cattle of the Common… http://canlii.ca/t/g7xr6
En passant, les "servitudes en charge" comme les "servitudes en droit" (qui ne sont pas identifiées dans la question) regroupent bien plus que les simples "droits de passage".
Connaître le pays d'origine du texte pourrait aider à raffiner les recherches.
The structure of the two sentences (the question and your reference) are entirely different.
The owners have certain rights (right of passage) and obligations (to grant passage).
In the asker's question, this is made clear by the verbs "souffriront et exerceront" which they therefore can/must "duly and legally" both benefit from (can) and respect (must).
In your sentence, "duly and legally" does not work simply because of the grammatical structure and so I agree would need a different solution.
But although your reference is interesting, it is NOT the sentence we are trying to solve here.
That is my take on it (with a low level of certainty) but I should have pointed this out in more detail, namely that the verbs indicate the type of servitude.
So what are you proposing instead besides your normal psycho-rigid obsession to disagree and lecture other? What is your answer for THIS question?
Google this phrase exactly as written: "servitude en charge" PR-1224 - Ville de Genève
Then click on what should be the first result, which is entitled PR-1224 - Ville de Genève. It will bring up a PDF of a Swiss administrative document. On page 12, it refers to removing from a property any "servitude en charge ou en droit."
These are two different kinds of legal servitudes on property. That's why it's possible to say "en charge OU en droit." It's not just a semi-meaningless legalism like "duly and legally."