AerospaceEnjoyer v BTernaryTau 2025 MCiv 01
AerospaceEnjoyer v BTernaryTau [2025] MCiv 01
| Date of judgment | 3rd September 2025 |
| Judicial officer | Magistrate Ben |
| Grounds | Action to quiet title |
| Verdict | Neither party had ownership at the time of filing this lawsuit. |
| Result | The disputed plot of land was owned by the State at the time of filing this lawsuit. |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Magistrate Benbookworm
Introduction
[1] While the first criminal trial for the Minecraft Colony of SimDemocracy was held asynchronously in the Discord server, the first civil trial was held live within the Minecraft server itself. The court commends the excellent job of Muffiln as bailiff in maintaining order. Following the principles underlying Article 4 of the Courtroom Procedures Act 2025 (CPA), the trial was recorded.
[2] The Plaintiff filed this suit on 26 August 2025 at 3:56am<ref name="time">The times and dates used here are based on UTC to the greatest extent possible. The timing of events will have some impact in considerations.</ref> alleging that the tort of “land ownership dispute” began on or about 23 August 2025, and cited Article 30 of the Civil Code 2025 regarding the creation of such a common law tort. Indeed, no appropriate statutory tort has yet been established, but was filed as such because the courts of SimDemocracy only have experience with crimes and torts. The cause of action is better referred to as requesting declaratory judgment to quiet title. The Plaintiff requests the court establish their ownership of the disputed parcel, and grant one (1) iron to compensate for any structural damage. The Defendant did not file a counterclaim.<ref name="counter">It is curious that neither side brought suit regarding the later alleged construction/destruction on their purported land.</ref>
Case of first impression: real property and equity
[3] The complaint arises out of a dispute over land ownership and control. Real property law has a well-earned reputation for being a very difficult specialty. This appears to be a new avenue of law for SimDemocracy. This is a case of first impression; like in the case underlying Dick_head68 (Appellant) v NovaSM (Respondent) [2019] SDCA 1 [2], where there is no precedent, one must be set<ref name="casino">See also NotCommunist336 et al. v Black Diamond Casino [2025] Civ 11 [14, 28]</ref>. Likewise SimDemocracy entirely lacks any history of courts of equity or equitable relief. As such, the wording used by the parties in court and in filings may be modified here based on what is hopefully better legal terminology, to aid in adjudicating future cases.
[4] Perhaps the only example of property law found in civil case law is TheReak v State of SimDemocracy [2023] Civ 1, which was primarily about the State taking property rather than two private parties disagreeing over ownership. However, it still proves useful here. Under [20], in considering common law torts, the judge’s decision may scarcely resemble the original proposal. Despite changes in statutory law, that interpretation remains valid under the current wording of Article 30 of the Civil Code 2025. This is similar to Willard v. Tayloe, 75 U.S. 557 (1869), where the United States Supreme Court said that the judge in a court of equity can modify the demands of parties according to justice where there would otherwise be an inequitable result.
Facts of the case
Evidence provided by the Plaintiff
[5] Exhibit A is a linked message from #general sent on 22 August 2025 at 5:30pm, wherein the Plaintiff requested iron. Exhibit B is a linked message on 26 August 2025 at 4:23am in #minecraft-server where TheFinalSeason said they were the one to send the iron; they were subsequently called as a witness. The Plaintiff alleged that no ownership sign was visible, and no registry available to consult.
Evidence provided by the Defendant
[6] Exhibits 1 and 2 are screenshots of chat within the Minecraft server that appear to be from 25 August 2025 at 23:58 in the Defendant’s local timezone<ref name="edt">It was not established at trial, but is believed that the Defendant is using Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4).</ref>. TheFinalSeason, 1yme, and the Defendant are discussing a wooden skyscraper being built on what the Defendant claims is their land. TheFinalSeason and 1yme say that it is ugly, uneven, and should be put out of its misery. Exhibit 3 comprises screenshots taken about 40 minutes later, primarily one of a plot of land with no building, just a sign saying the plot is owned by BTernary Tau. TheFinalSeason, MetaIndex, and twisty_pretzels are discussing a southern confederation that does not seem to have been referenced during trial, and CoreProtect reports no results for a lookup search.<ref name="def-evidence">In an odd turn of events, despite the Defense submitting this evidence to the court during pre-trial, counsel for Defense later objected to the exhibits as irrelevant when the Plaintiff used them, and subsequently declined to present evidence when their turn came. </ref>
Evidence from witness testimony
[7] The Plaintiff called TheFinalSeason as a witness. Upon questioning, the witness testified that they were lurking in #general, and responded to the Plaintiff's request for iron by depositing 192 iron blocks next to a wooden frame. They had teleported there, so did not have sure knowledge/recollection of the location, but said that the cottages such as those in Exhibit 3 are consistent with those of western Yerver. They did not recall a sign present at the beginning of construction when giving the iron, but that there was one later when they observed an oak structure of three to five stories (which aligns with Exhibits 1 and 2).
[8] Counsel for Plaintiff made a number of very circular and somewhat leading questions (objected to by counsel for the Defense) that seem to have been asking for the witness to describe the size and location of the wooden skyscraper within the context of Exhibit 3. It appears the witness misunderstood the questioning and described the location of the plot compared to the nearby paths and the ice highway.
[9] At this point in the trial, two hours had elapsed. Echoing the sentiment of the participants of Exhibit 1 and 2 regarding being put out of misery, counsel for Defense declined to cross examine the witness. Even the server was done, and announced that it would restart imminently. The trial was adjourned, and closing arguments were subsequently presented in the Discord server.
Relevant statutory and case law
[10] Article 19 of the Civil Code 2025 lays out monetary relief and injunctions as remedies, but also tasks the judge with using their best judgment to offer fair, proportional remedies, but still within the bounds of legislation. This serves to highlight that equitable remedies have been given scant consideration up to this point.
[11] The Minecraft Land Property Act 2025 (MLPA) was passed by the Assembly on 18 July 2025<ref name="appa">While perhaps the Minecraft Abandoned Property and Possession Act 2025 (APPA) would have been useful in this matter, it was not passed by the Assembly until 29 August 2025, after this trial was underway.</ref>. The contents, in part, are as follows:
- [11.1] Under §1 the State has default ownership over land, but all users are granted usufruct rights.
- [11.2] Under §2 a user may apply to the Governor (or through the local municipality under §5) for ownership. The Governor has a degree of discretion over granting such, and must keep a registry per §4.
[12] The Land Registry required by §4 does not appear to have existed (or at least not been publicly available) until the Governor posted it on 26 August 2025 at about 7:22am. At the time of writing, the registry only includes claims from the Governor and the Defendant.
- [12.1] On 26 August 2025 at about 6:22pm, the court entered an injunction against further changes to the property, pending resolution of this case. Reminder: this case was filed at 3:56am the same day, before the registry existed.
- [12.2] The delay of over a month in posting the registry constitutes a violation of Article II§1.8 of the Minecraft Colony Charter Act (the Charter): Access to timely and relevant governance information.
[13] Article 1§2 and Article 19§10 of the Civil Code 2025 also establishes that “Ignorance of the law is no excuse to disregard it.” However, there must be limits on such. For example, the United States Supreme Court said in Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957) that “Notice is required before property interests are disturbed, before assessments are made, before penalties are assessed.”<ref name="blatant">Before subsequent litigants latch onto this citation, be aware that it is limited by cases such as United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971), where requirements of scienter yield to blatantly dangerous actions.</ref> The non-existence of the Land Registry means the Plaintiff was incapable of taking constructive notice of its contents.
General considerations of equity
[14] While it is often said that “possession is nine-tenths of the law”, there would never be a court case about real property without that other tenth. It may seem unusual that an action in real property would be heard by a court of equity, but such courts were created to be faster and more flexible than courts of common law, and more individually tailored than legislation can possibly hope to be. (The Assembly is nevertheless encouraged to continue to codify legislation on real property so that parties are on notice of the law in advance.)
- [14.1] Under Article VII§1.2.2 of the Charter, the court is to ensure resolution of disputes. It is not possible to adequately resolve disputes unless the court possesses equitable jurisdiction to grant remedies other than solely monetary relief and injunctions<ref name="marbury">See also Reference re Minecraft Jurisdiction [2025] MIC 01 and the cited Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) regarding rights and remedies.</ref>.
[15] There was not any signage, nor a registry entry, nor any development on the property to indicate ownership by the Defendant. Nor did the Defendant timely allege they acted in good faith relying on the Governor to maintain the registry. While the evidence indicates that the Plaintiff’s construction was demolished, it was not established to be the fault of the Defendant. The court does not find any credible allegations of bad faith on the part of the Defendant.
[16] The Plaintiff has acted in good faith (outside the courtroom), and had no constructive notice of the plot’s alleged ownership, per [13] here. The Plaintiff sought public comment on the land, and began “land improvements” by constructing a wooden skyscraper. As such, the Plaintiff comes with “clean hands”, and is not barred from equitable relief. However, the Plaintiff has no pre-existing claim under statute to the plot of land.
Real property law
[17] Broadly speaking, there are two manners in which governments keep records regarding land ownership. One system is called deeds registration, which amounts to a record of transfers of property without input as to whether each transfer was valid. The other flavor is the Torrens title system, where the registration is conclusive evidence, indefeasible proof of ownership. Common law jurisdictions broadly are transitioning to the latter system; the United States remains an outlier in retaining deed registration. To which system does the Colony subscribe?
- [17.1] Based on the wording of the MLPA §4: “The Governor must keep a registry of which players own what land” (emphasis added), it is plausible to interpret that the registry follows the Torrens title system, though specificity is lacking. While passed after this case began APPA Article 5§1.1 says the “Minecraft Assembly shall maintain a Property Registry of all claims, transfers, and exemptions.” Keeping a registry of such legal instruments appears to more closely align with a deeds registration system.
- [17.2] It is not the place of this court to determine which system the Colony should follow—that is for the elected legislature—but to interpret the law in a just and equitable manner. The delayed creation of the registry highlights how a volunteer, online community ought not necessarily be held to the same exacting standards of legal, professional property registries. Taken together with the lack of specificity in the MLPA, the court finds that the Colony currently follows a system of deeds registration: the registry is convincing but not definitive evidence of ownership.
[18] The court now turns to the timing of when ownership of land officially changes. In transactions between private parties, MLPA §3 and Article 12 of the Civil Code 2025 are sufficiently clear that the conveyance is official once an unmodified offer is accepted<ref name="written">While the current statutes on contracts appear to permit any contract to be verbal or written, many jurisdictions have adopted a “statute of frauds” requiring certain contracts such as those of great value, long duration, or involving real estate to be in writing.</ref>, and the transfer is to be reported for registration. This can logically be extended to purchases of land from the State under Article 4§2.2 of the Civil Code 2025. However, there are multiple defined steps for initially purchasing the land from the State. After an application is filed, the Governor determines acceptance and the price. Setting the price modifies the offers on the table; until paid, the ownership does not transfer.
Verdict
[19] The Plaintiff does not have ownership of the contested land, as they never went through any steps to acquire it from any previous owner.
[20] The Defendant did not have ownership of the contested land at the time of the Plaintiff’s construction, and presented no evidence to the contrary.
[21] At the time of the lawsuit being filed, the disputed plot of land was owned by the State. The court was not presented with enough evidence and argument to rule beyond that point in time.
Postscript
[21] Under Article 14§3.3.2 of the Constitution, any and all decisions of law may be appealed to the Supreme Court of SimDemocracy
Footnotes
<references />