FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

law86

Maybe add in either mortgages or landlord/tenant (probably easier) to give yourself some breathing space. The pattern this year has been - don't bank on the bankers.

JCJCJC

I'd add lease/license, it's easy, only half-a-dozen cases, check recent UK case Clear Channel UK v Manchester City Council [2006], nothing more recent in Ireland it seems.

If you tackle adv poss, know the effect (if any) of Pye v Graham in Ireland.

2010 case on AP here: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2010/H103.html

JC

law_lady

I seem to be the only one who didn't enjoy Equity yesterday! I had my 5 Qs in theory but my mind went blank with a lot of case names. Do you think they'd give some marks for the point of law being correct but the odd case name wrong? I got an awful fright towards the end of Q1, I reread the question and realised I had to write about mistake as a defence to SP, I nearly missed it!

And I can see the examiners report now... "Most students answered well but some failed to answer the question asked, instead writing all they knew about the topic." I think I sort of did that for tracing, despite my common sense telling me to cop on!!

So Property is end game for me, I think I failed yesterday so if I don't do well tomorrow I don't get my 3!! So far I've covered:

Succession
Adverse Possession
Co-ownership
Family Property
Easements
Lease/Licence
Judgement Mortgages

What do you guys think, covered? Hope Criminal went well for everyone today!

AnnAh1986

law_lady wrote: »

I seem to be the only one who didn't enjoy Equity yesterday! I had my 5 Qs in theory but my mind went blank with a lot of case names. Do you think they'd give some marks for the point of law being correct but the odd case name wrong? I got an awful fright towards the end of Q1, I reread the question and realised I had to write about mistake as a defence to SP, I nearly missed it!

And I can see the examiners report now... "Most students answered well but some failed to answer the question asked, instead writing all they knew about the topic." I think I sort of did that for tracing, despite my common sense telling me to cop on!!

So Property is end game for me, I think I failed yesterday so if I don't do well tomorrow I don't get my 3!! So far I've covered:

Succession
Adverse Possession
Co-ownership
Family Property
Easements
Lease/Licence
Judgement Mortgages

What do you guys think, covered? Hope Criminal went well for everyone today!

I am in a similar position. Am planning to do above, maybe not lease/licence, plus rest of mortgages and covenants. Although that depends on time at this stage!!

NoQuarter

i know judgment mortgages came up last paper in a question with treasure trove and some other things! you thnk it will come up again?

You hae a decent bit covered, especially if succession comes up twice?

speaking of which, when it does come up twice, is it usually a Q on the formailties/capacity AND a Q on LRS??

mariaod

Question for people doing property.

In relation to Co-Ownership, Can a judgment mortgagee of REGISTERED land apply for an order to the court for partition or sale in lieu of partition.

under the new act, technically only a person with an estate or interest in land can do so and this includes judgment mortgagees.
however registration of a judgment mortgage over REGISTERED LAND does not involve a transfer of the debtors estate or interest.

is the position stilll different in relation to registered and unregistered land.

Please someone help if they know the answer. its driving me crazy

Ruby83

mariaod wrote: »

Question for people doing property.

In relation to Co-Ownership, Can a judgment mortgagee of REGISTERED land apply for an order to the court for partition or sale in lieu of partition.

under the new act, technically only a person with an estate or interest in land can do so and this includes judgment mortgagees.
however registration of a judgment mortgage over REGISTERED LAND does not involve a transfer of the debtors estate or interest.

is the position stilll different in relation to registered and unregistered land.

Please someone help if they know the answer. its driving me crazy

Judgment mortgagees can apply to the court for severance as per section 31.
Section 31(1) allows the court to sever the joint tenancy.
Section 31(4) clearly states that a judgment mortgagee has standing to apply in this regard.
So the distinction that was made previously between registered and unregistered land by Laffoy in Irwin v Deasy is no longer the case as the act allows judgment mortgagees to apply to the court.
This is my understanding of the issue anyway.

thecoolfreak

Speaking of licences, are people covering Licences as a whole or just the lease/licence distinction?

Ruby83

thecoolfreak wrote: »

Speaking of licences, are people covering Licences as a whole or just the lease/licence distinction?

I'm doing licences. Its pretty straightforward and comes up very often, including rights of residence which often makes up a part of the four part question. Has overlap with other subjects too due to estoppel licences so is nice that way.

law86

What did anyone think of criminal? I got five questions out of it, but I thought it was kind of tough.

chopser

With adverse possession, is it now since Feehan v Leamy, that you must be inconsistent with the future intended use of the land by the paper owner, as in Leigh v Jack?

ElmoLaw

law86 wrote: »

What did anyone think of criminal? I got five questions out of it, but I thought it was kind of tough.

i agree- the essay choices werent that great but overall the paper was ok. i didnt expect summary vs indictment to come up at all! i had a thought this morning i should look at it but too much to do.

i got 5 ques too- lets hope they mark nicely.

i wish we had a marking scheme!!

NoQuarter

chopser wrote: »

With adverse possession, is it now since Feehan v Leamy, that you must be inconsistent with the future intended use of the land by the paper owner, as in Leigh v Jack?

The main thing to take from Feehan v. Leamy is that the court said the statute of lims had no bearing or regard for the intention of the true owner, the fact that he had a future intended use makes no difference.

Once the squatter has Animus for the sufficent time, thats enough. But basically since Feehan and also the Durack care, Durack was the first case to overturn JAck and Cork Corporation cases!

chopser

Thats great thank you, so Ireland is in line with English law of Buckinghamshire C.C v Moran in that the courts no longer have any regard for the paper owners future intended use?

JCJCJC

NoQuarter wrote: »

The main thing to take from Feehan v. Leamy is that the court said the statute of lims had no bearing or regard for the intention of the true owner, the fact that he had a future intended use makes no difference.

Once the squatter has Animus for the sufficent time, thats enough. But basically since Feehan and also the Durack care, Durack was the first case to overturn JAck and Cork Corporation cases!

In Feehan the paper owner looked in over the gate every so often. The court noted that his paper title ran to the middle of the road (as is common) and said that on that basis he hadn't been dispossessed . The case sets a high threshold for dispossession - Niall Buckley SC wrote an article on it called 'defeating adverse possession by looking in over the hedge' which about sums it up. The so-called future use theory and the line of cases in both jurisdictions following Leigh v Jack are not now as important as they were. Pye v Graham was the biggest cloud on the horizon for a while but it has not in the end changed anything, in fact it is authority for AP being ECHR-friendly if anything.
Well, that's what I'll say anyway!

JC

NoQuarter

I wasnt aware of that english case chopser but if thats what it says then thats a yes!

The ONLY regard the irish courts have for the true owners intended future use is if the squatter has regard to it himself.

For example, if a squatter was to take possession of land "until the true owner is ready to use it for his intended use". Thats enough to fail in adverse possession.

I assume your aware that ireland and england are at complete odds with regard to the position of leasehold property yeah?

NoQuarter

JCJCJC wrote: »

Pye v Graham

Strange because today i read an article which said that the english position is against the ECHR. (an oldish griffith manual - post Pye though)

While other sources say what youve said and thats what i thought.

chopser

Yeah I thinn I have the grasp of that, Fairweather v St Marylebone property Company ltd in england and Perry v Woodfarm homes ltd in Ireland. Still hoping that it doesn't come up though!

law86

NoQuarter wrote: »

Strange because today i read an article which said that the english position is against the ECHR. (an oldish griffith manual - post Pye though)

While other sources say what youve said and thats what i thought.

It went to the ECHR twice - final decision from Grand Chamber gave it the thumbs up.

NoQuarter

JCJCJC wrote: »

In Feehan the paper owner looked in over the gate every so often.

JC

Whats the position on this JC?? That 2010 case said that the paper owner has to show they were using the land (hanging the clothes line in this case).

I thought the paper owner needs to do something like retake possession, get a signed note or get some rest to stop the clock??

If they pop their head over the gate time to time what does that mean? Is it inconsistent with the adverse possession?

JCJCJC

NoQuarter wrote: »

Whats the position on this JC?? That 2010 case said that the paper owner has to show they were using the land (hanging the clothes line in this case).

I thought the paper owner needs to do something like retake possession, get a signed note or get some rest to stop the clock??

If they pop their head over the gate time to time what does that mean? Is it inconsistent with the adverse possession?

In Feehan the judge thought it was enough, just checked on bailii:

The only use to which he put the land was to visit it on a number of occasions each year when he would park his car and standing on the road or in the gateway look over the hedge or the gate into the same. He was never prevented from doing this by the Second named Defendant. Insofar as the Plaintiff’s title is concerned the presumption is that it extends to the centre of the road and so when standing at the gate looking into the lands the Plaintiff was in fact standing on his own lands. This he did from the evidence several times a year throughout the period in which the Second named Defendant claiming to have been in adverse possession. As I understand his evidence, the Plaintiff was exercising all the rights of ownership which he wished to exercise in respect of the lands pending the determination of litigators. I find as a matter of fact that he was not dispossessed.

Ruby83

chopser wrote: »

Yeah I thinn I have the grasp of that, Fairweather v St Marylebone property Company ltd in england and Perry v Woodfarm homes ltd in Ireland. Still hoping that it doesn't come up though!

I don't get this at all. I know the cases and would throw them down if necessary but if someone has a second could they explain? Think I'm getting an ulcer cos of all I have left to cover...:eek:

Sarahaw

First, best of luck tomorrow everyone......but about this morning, did anyone else have difficulty with criminal?

I was very dissapointed with it. I thought it would be one of the easier ones and i reckon i possibly failed it (passed other 3 I think though so not too bad!)

I expected a full sexual offences Q - maybe consent, Q1 cae from way left field and that question on the Central Criminal Court sucked too!

Also, anyone who done the course with independent colleges prob struggles with the fragmented question because the manual had practically nothing for at least 2 parts of that question other than to state the legislation.....not cool!!

What did all y'all think?

JCJCJC

Ruby83 wrote: »

I don't get this at all. I know the cases and would throw them down if necessary but if someone has a second could they explain? Think I'm getting an ulcer cos of all I have left to cover...:eek:

NOt sure I really understand your question but I'll try to explain my understanding of it, very quickly. Registered freehold - no problem, the squatter dispossesses the legal owner after 12 years. However, leasehold means there is a lessor and lessee. The squatter squats on the lessee's interest and after twelve years, what does he have? The Act says the squat extinguishes the title of the ousted party, so does the squatter now have a lease? If so, is he subject to the covenants in the lease? How can he have the title of the disposessed person, if that title is extinguished by operation of law per the statute of Lims.? The big problem comes at the end of the lease, is the lessor entitled to re-enter? There is some academic authority to say that a fresh 12-yr period must run at the end of the lease in order to re-oust the reversionary interest of the lessor.
In St Marylebone, the dispossessed lessee attempted to snooker the squatter basically by surrendering the lease to the lessor, thus giving the lessor an immediate right to re-enter. The problem is how valid is that.

see Una Woods' articles on it.

Easy?

JC

Ruby83

JCJCJC wrote: »

NOt sure I really understand your question but I'll try to explain my understanding of it, very quickly. Registered freehold - no problem, the squatter dispossesses the legal owner after 12 years. However, leasehold means there is a lessor and lessee. The squatter squats on the lessee's interest and after twelve years, what does he have? The Act says the squat extinguishes the title of the ousted party, so does the squatter now have a lease? If so, is he subject to the covenants in the lease? How can he have the title of the disposessed person, if that title is extinguished by operation of law per the statute of Lims.? The big problem comes at the end of the lease, is the lessor entitled to re-enter? There is some academic authority to say that a fresh 12-yr period must run at the end of the lease in order to re-oust the reversionary interest of the lessor.
In St Marylebone, the dispossessed lessee attempted to snooker the squatter basically by surrendering the lease to the lessor, thus giving the lessor an immediate right to re-enter. The problem is how valid is that.

see Una Woods' articles on it.

Easy?

JC

Ok so let me see if the following is correct:
England: per Marylebone, lease can be surrendered by lessee to landlord even though he has been dispossessed and then the landlord has a fresh 12 year period in which he can assert his title so this would mean at the greatest, a squatter could have to be in possession for 24 years?

Ireland: a different approach as per Perry means that the lease continues between the landlord and original lessee even though the lessee has been dispossessed and the lessee has to abide by the original covenants in the lease. Does this mean that for the squatter so long as the lease continues he cannot be in adverse possession as he can always be the subject of forfeiture or what? This is the bit I don't really get.
Think I had this at one point in time but seems to be totally confusing now.

Thanks for explaining though in ur previous note!

Jev/N

law86 wrote: »

What did anyone think of criminal? I got five questions out of it, but I thought it was kind of tough.

Strange exam, I did 6 questions funnily enough.

Did the Court of Criminal Appeal one as my first and only had a page and a half for it, although I had done a sample answer last night. Had 40 mins left at the end so decided to chance a sixth!

law_lady

Here's what I get (briefly) about Adverse Possession, I think I've got it down but I'm open to correction.

If the land is incapable of use/enjoyment, a squatter can't claim to have discontinued the true owner's use/enjoyment so no AP (Dundalk UDC v Conway). Must be intent to exclude, exemplified by possession inconsistent with the owners title. (Murphy v Murphy; Doyle v O'Neill).

Leigh v Jack suggested squatters use must be inconsistent with Future Intended Use of paper owner to be AP. In Ireland, this idea was used in Cork Corporation v Lynch. However, Leigh has been more or less eliminated. In England (Buckinghamshire Co. Co. v Moran) animus possidendi for the time being suffices, irrespective of FIU.

In Ireland, (Durack) it was held that the only relevance of FIU is in determining the squatters intention. If the squatter only intended to possess until the owners FIU was implemented, this is not sufficient for AP. The Statute of Limitations doesn't mention anything about the true owner's intention so Leigh is wrong in putting such weight on an owners FIU.

Since 2000 (Feehan v Leamy) it has been the case that failure to prevent the owner from exercising his right to ownership in whatever way he chooses means no AP. In that case just looking over the hedge was considered to suffice as the owner exercising his right. This case showed once and for all that Leigh is not relevant to Irish AP.

As for Pye, there were two Chamber rulings but in the end they held that the UK law is fine as it is! I think anyway! Obviously not that simple but that's the end result!

And for leasehold, England view is that the ousted tenant can surrender so the landlords right of action accrues early (Fairweather). In Ireland, the SC has held (Perry v Woodfarm Homes) that the tenant can't surrender or assign but is still bound by the leasehold covenants even though they've been ousted.

What I don't really get is the whole "the landlord may forfeit the lease for failure to pay rent" thing, as discussed in Ticker v Buzzacott. Is this only an option if the tenant hasn't surrendered? Leasehold is definitely confusing!

walrusgumble

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/Report%20Adverse%20Possession.pdf

that should help, don't worry its not too long

so for payne case una woods and ayward have very good articles. pay attention to una's

walrusgumble

law_lady wrote: »

Here's what I get (briefly) about Adverse Possession, I think I've got it down but I'm open to correction.

If the land is incapable of use/enjoyment, a squatter can't claim to have discontinued the true owner's use/enjoyment so no AP (Dundalk UDC v Conway). Must be intent to exclude, exemplified by possession inconsistent with the owners title. (Murphy v Murphy; Doyle v O'Neill).

Leigh v Jack suggested squatters use must be inconsistent with Future Intended Use of paper owner to be AP. In Ireland, this idea was used in Cork Corporation v Lynch. However, Leigh has been more or less eliminated. In England (Buckinghamshire Co. Co. v Moran) animus possidendi for the time being suffices, irrespective of FIU.

In Ireland, (Durack) it was held that the only relevance of FIU is in determining the squatters intention. If the squatter only intended to possess until the owners FIU was implemented, this is not sufficient for AP. The Statute of Limitations doesn't mention anything about the true owner's intention so Leigh is wrong in putting such weight on an owners FIU.

Since 2000 (Feehan v Leamy) it has been the case that failure to prevent the owner from exercising his right to ownership in whatever way he chooses means no AP. In that case just looking over the hedge was considered to suffice as the owner exercising his right. This case showed once and for all that Leigh is not relevant to Irish AP.

As for Pye, there were two Chamber rulings but in the end they held that the UK law is fine as it is! I think anyway! Obviously not that simple but that's the end result!

And for leasehold, England view is that the ousted tenant can surrender so the landlords right of action accrues early (Fairweather). In Ireland, the SC has held (Perry v Woodfarm Homes) that the tenant can't surrender or assign but is still bound by the leasehold covenants even though they've been ousted.

What I don't really get is the whole "the landlord may forfeit the lease for failure to pay rent" thing, as discussed in Ticker v Buzzacott. Is this only an option if the tenant hasn't surrendered? Leasehold is definitely confusing!

frank clarke (as usual) sums up adverse possession with regard to freehold really well in dunn v cie and iarnod eireann 2007 (or 2008)

NoQuarter

law_lady wrote: »

In Ireland, the SC has held (Perry v Woodfarm Homes) that the tenant can't surrender or assign but is still bound by the leasehold covenants even though they've been ousted.

What I don't really get is the whole "the landlord may forfeit the lease for failure to pay rent" thing, as discussed in Ticker v Buzzacott. Is this only an option if the tenant hasn't surrendered? Leasehold is definitely confusing!

I dotn think the law here is actually black and white anyways. So its fine to say that in the exam if thats the case.

But to answer your point, once adverse possession occurs, the original tenant is ousted and therefore all his rights are extinguished so he cant surrender his lease to the landlord (unlike in the UK).

So now the squatter must abide by the covenants that were on the lease that he has moved in on. Therefore if he lets say smoked(if it was non smoking on the lease) or if he failed to pay rent (as it would say in the lease) then it may be possible for the landlord to end the lease.

So essentially its like the squatter cant put a foot wrong. An issue arises then as to whether the squatter is entitled to a copy of the lease with the covenants in it so he knows what he must abide by.

My understanding of this last point is that there is no answer or authority on it yet! I think it was just an observation from an academic.