½ûÂþÌìÌÃ

sorry to reply to my own message...but the reason i posted this is that it seems there are an awful lot of complaints about agents selling houses and the prices they charge...the costs or even thoughts on paying solicitors but in fact the agent may well have spent days with you...he will make sure all the documents regarding the property are there for the notary... at least ggod ones...and yet i never hear any complaints about paying someone to collect tax off of you or notarising...in effect noting down the exchange of the property... and more importantly than all the above not wishing to upset our forum notary who in my opinion has been more than helpful in explaining and helping a lot of memebers with enquiries on the forum... so please take this for what it is ....

Ok, I've a personal interest in this matter, so my words can be considerd partisan.
In many previous threads I've already written that notaries are not legal supermen and are not more competent than "avvocati".
Of course, a lawyer, with specific experience, can draft a contract as well as a notary.
So why the italian system - better - the european continental system, from France to Russia, the South America system and even in China, now, is working in that way ?
First of all for historical reasons: common law (solicitors) and civil law (notaries) are two separated legal worlds, so the guarantees system has developed itself in different ways: a post contractual court protection in the common law and a pre contractual protection in civil law.
In common law every party defends his interest with his own lawyer and, if something goes wrong, will the court to decide.
In civil law the State entrusts some public officials (the notaries) to guarantee, pre-emptively, the validity of some contracts that are considered important (and cars are not one ot those).
As I wrote, the real, main, goal (and job) of a notary, isn't to certify something, but to prevent post-contractual litigation.
Does it works ?
Apparentely yes: in the civil law countries the litigation in legal fields entrusted to notaries is lower than common low countries, and litigation means costs.
Things will change in the future ? May be, who knows?
But it's interesting to note that something is going to change in some common law countries.
There are some intriguing new laws recentely approved in Florida and South (or North I can't remember) that have created in these States the "civil law notary".
The intension of those laws is to reduce the legal costs, with a neutral legal professional, that takes care of the contract in the way notaries do.

It was South Carolina, the Carolina was missing :o

... i agree it seemed that the car buying proces would not seem important enough to require a notary...but up until spring this year it did...at an extra cost to all car purchases, new or secondhand here.... important or not it must have provided quite a large and secure income for those notaries that specialised in this ...and i know that they were often guaranteed all the work from say one car sales room or another.... and multiplied by several million sales each year must be sorely missed by some at least

as to the differences i do not think that the amount of litigation involved in house sale contracts in the uk would be ever regarded as one of the most litagous areas of uk common law.... or any of the rest of the world that has based its system on that form of law...

... i had also thought that the american notary was a long established part of the us property buying process and not something new.... as we have several us citizens on the site it would be interesting to see how that system works

however of more interest to people buying houses here is the fact that you state that the contract is guaranteed to be valid under italian law because of the notarial involvement... which begs the question why use a solicitor...

in a sense you seem to be saying that it is impossable to buy a house in italy with a contract notarised that in all senses cannot be either wrong or mistaken because it is guaranteed by the notarys signature and preperation of the document to be right and that is their role and why it costs so much ...

... i too agree also that notaries are used widely elsewhere... and the question stems from someone coming from a system that does not use them habitually... in england i would think it would almost be like a registrar so we have the equivalent .... but in general for births..deaths ... marriages etc.....or to witness and certify certain documents... so i would say that to have a common law legal system does not preclude having a notary... it just changes the way you use them

..... i also remember that in france when buying property the notary was also the estate agent so that the agents fees included the services of the notary.... maybe that would be a good way for italian notaries to head...

as regards russia and china uing the same system of civil law i think you might find that historically countries that wish to exercise as much state control as possable over their citizens ... in general communist states have always opted for this system... it provides added guaranteed income to the state and control over their citizens...

american law being based on a very specific charter of the rights of the citizen and their freedoms is in a sense a much freer system than the uk based common law system and in my opinion is the way the eu has and will move forward in its law building attempts for europe wide legislation..... and i think that the enforced use of the notary in particular in private sales / purchases ie houses will be regarded as against the rights of the citizen to own and dispose of property freely

coming from a family of lawyers,one of whom has practised tax.trust and property law for 20 years in the u.k(including buying and selling houses) i can confirm that in my experience and that of the lawyers whom i know,litigation relating to the purchase of residential property is very rare.

[QUOTE=notaio]Does it works ?
Apparentely yes: in the civil law countries the litigation in legal fields entrusted to notaries is lower than common low countries, and litigation means costs.
[/QUOTE]

[color=black]I have very little knowledge of this subject but have had some thoughts as to why litigation may be reported as lower with notaries.[/color]

[color=black]It is said that litigation in [/color][color=black]Italy[/color][color=black] takes years anyway.[/color]

[color=black]Would a lower registered price paid than what was really paid not make this a very difficult situation, in other words not able to claim full compensation, depending on what the litigation was obviously.[/color]

[color=black]Would it not be harder to win against a notary considering they have status? [/color]

[color=black]I would suggest low litigation may indicate that it's more trouble than it's worth????[/color]

[color=black]This is no reflection on you Notaio as you have been more than helpful and I believe very honest, my gripe is with dodgy agents who do not do their job properly in the first place which may reflect on how much a notary will do to ensure all is correct. A lawyer will take further steps to protect his client that are outside a notaries remit of work. Of course it goes without saying that there are good and not so good lawyers too. [/color]

[I]Just a few words in order to answer to your posts.
Trullo, we've already talked in other threads about this matter, so I'll try to br not repetitive.
- You say that low litigation may indicate that it's more trouble than it's worth becouse of the slowness of italian justice.
First of all, as I've written before, the notarial systems works in the same way in many other countries, and most of them have a fast justice.
But even not considering this point, would you accept, for yourself, an invalid purchase or you'd act for your rights even if you had to wait for the decision ?
- notaries have no specific status before a court: if we do something wrong people can, of course, act toward us, so I cannot understand what you mean saying that it's harder to win against a notary considering they have status
- "dodgy agents who do not do their job properly". I agree, but it's not a notary's inefficiency. I also agree that a legal assistance is enecessary. Normally italians find this assistance with a notary, so now we have two options:
a) we must consider that there is an epidemic disease of collective stupidity if people entrust their interests (often when you buy house you're investing the savings of a whole life) to persons whose job is essentially [I]"to rubber stamp the documents in general provided by the agents[/I]" as adriatica says.
Only a foolish could

sorry, pushed the wrong button....

Just a few words in order to answer to your posts.
Trullo, we've already talked in other threads about this matter, so I'll try to br not repetitive.
- You say that low litigation may indicate that it's more trouble than it's worth becouse of the slowness of italian justice.
First of all, as I've written before, the notarial systems works in the same way in many other countries, and most of them have a fast justice.
But even not considering this point, would you accept, for yourself, an invalid purchase or you'd act for your rights even if you had to wait for the decision ?
- notaries have no specific status before a court: if we do something wrong people can, of course, act toward us, so I cannot understand what you mean saying that it's harder to win against a notary considering they have status
- "dodgy agents who do not do their job properly". I agree, but it's not a notary's inefficiency.
I also agree that a legal assistance is enecessary.
Normally italians find this assistance with a notary, so now we have two options:
a) we must consider that there is an epidemic disease of collective stupidity if people entrust their interests (often when you buy house you're investing the savings of a whole life) to persons whose job is essentially [I]"to rubber stamp the documents in general provided by the agents" as adriatica says.
Only a foolish could puts his savings into the hands of a such unecessary people, he should run to a lawyer and ask him to supervise what is doing that bureaucrat of notary, that he must use only because the law impose it.
Adriatica says that this doesn't happen only because people do not want to pay twice.
Once again, do you think that people (at least part of them) investing their savings wouldn't accept to pay an extra amount of money for better assistance ?
And we're not talking about ordinary people only, but also companies, public insitutions and so on.
So why doesn't it happen in Italy and Europe ?

b) Can be a second option, probably notaries give a good service, are considered competent and trustworthy and people think that a lawyer is not ncessary.

Are they more exepnsive than lawyers?
It's a legal service and I do not know the fees of a solicitor, but to compare them you have to compare the service given and the activity executed.
Moreover you have to remember that without a third neutral party as a notary is, a lawyer is ncessary for vendor and buyer, so the total legal cost double.

Is notary's fate to disappear ?
May be, but this is desirable only if the future have same guarantees and lower costs.

[QUOTE=notaio]sorry, pushed the wrong button....

Just a few words in order to answer to your posts.
Trullo, we've already talked in other threads about this matter, so I'll try to br not repetitive.
- You say that low litigation may indicate that it's more trouble than it's worth becouse of the slowness of italian justice.
First of all, as I've written before, the notarial systems works in the same way in many other countries, and most of them have a fast justice.
But even not considering this point, would you accept, for yourself, an invalid purchase or you'd act for your rights even if you had to wait for the decision ?
- notaries have no specific status before a court: if we do something wrong people can, of course, act toward us, so I cannot understand what you mean saying that it's harder to win against a notary considering they have status
- "dodgy agents who do not do their job properly". I agree, but it's not a notary's inefficiency.
I also agree that a legal assistance is enecessary.
Normally italians find this assistance with a notary, so now we have two options:
a) we must consider that there is an epidemic disease of collective stupidity if people entrust their interests (often when you buy house you're investing the savings of a whole life) to persons whose job is essentially [I]"to rubber stamp the documents in general provided by the agents" as adriatica says.
Only a foolish could puts his savings into the hands of a such unecessary people, he should run to a lawyer and ask him to supervise what is doing that bureaucrat of notary, that he must use only because the law impose it.
Adriatica says that this doesn't happen only because people do not want to pay twice.
Once again, do you think that people (at least part of them) investing their savings wouldn't accept to pay an extra amount of money for better assistance ?
And we're not talking about ordinary people only, but also companies, public insitutions and so on.
So why doesn't it happen in Italy and Europe ?

b) Can be a second option, probably notaries give a good service, are considered competent and trustworthy and people think that a lawyer is not ncessary.

Are they more exepnsive than lawyers?
It's a legal service and I do not know the fees of a solicitor, but to compare them you have to compare the service given and the activity executed.
Moreover you have to remember that without a third neutral party as a notary is, a lawyer is ncessary for vendor and buyer, so the total legal cost double.

Is notary's fate to disappear ?
May be, but this is desirable only if the future have same guarantees and lower costs.[/QUOTE]

As I said I have little knowledge on the subject and they were suggestions as to why statistics do not always show the true picture and I'm sure that for the majority you are right.