FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

frustratedTC

boomtown u think we'll just have 4?

sazzyfiz

frustratedTC wrote: »

boomtown u think we'll just have 4?

im doin:

succession
AP
Family
Mortgages
Licenses & right to reside
Easements
Co-Ownership
finding and treasure trove
land registration

then a tiny tiny bit on equity and poss tenure

think it will be okay to leave out landlord and tenant and freehold covenants???

and does anyone know what has been hinted from the prep courses??

this time 2m....FREEDOM:D

boomtown84

dream paper aka only paper i'll pass:
succession x 2
ad.p x 1
mortgages problem q.(mortgages hasn't come up in 2 sittings)
family property or easements x 1

i'm living in the clouds!

brian__foley

JCJCJC wrote: »

Send it to our friend and mentor Brian Foley BL. I've passed contract, thankfully. The discussion was in the context of people wondering what Brian thought of the paper - and I'll make the same point again - he can't comment unless and until he sees it.

tks JC

I'll say something about this once the exams are done! No point adding stress right now!

evercloserunion

F*cking criminal! Terrible exam for me. Didn't study procedure, certainly didn't expect 3 questions to come up on it! Apart from that, struggled with remembering cases and legislation for the last two questions and struggled with time because there are so many points you could potentially make for each question.

Got the omissions, rape/sex assault and boat questions out okay, but the last two problem questions were very sketchy at best. Good chance I failed, which would be a pain in the arse. Maybe not though, I just don't know what kind of standard they expect.

frustratedTC

What have griffith predicted for property?

donners87

hey, would anyone have a copy of today's criminal paper? would love to see it!

Caoileann

Does anyone know how important the 'sentences' for criminal are? I had all my cases, all my statutes and knew what I was talking about but the sentencing for property offences in particular completely escaped me and i just guessed! Other than that I had 5 good questions.

Also how do we get our results are they posted to us/online/both?!

MoneyMilo

Hey, could someone clarify the case of Reilly v Walsh for me? It's the case of 2 brothers owning a commercial property.

One brother purports to leave his share of the property to the other in his will. The surviving brother claimed that it was a tenancy in common so as to avail of the gift. It was deemed to be a joint tenancy however so he couldn't get the gift.

What I don't get is why would the surviving brother claim for it to be a tenancy in common as if that's the only way to receive the gift? If it's a joint tenancy does he not acquire the property in its entirety anyway???

LadyLily

MoneyMilo wrote: »

Hey, could someone clarify the case of Reilly v Walsh for me? It's the case of 2 brothers owning a commercial property.

One brother purports to leave his share of the property to the other in his will. The surviving brother claimed that it was a tenancy in common so as to avail of the gift. It was deemed to be a joint tenancy however so he couldn't get the gift.

What I don't get is why would the surviving brother claim for it to be a tenancy in common as if that's the only way to receive the gift? If it's a joint tenancy does he not acquire the property in its entirety anyway???

As far as I know: its related to commercial arrangements and I think it was Reilly and not the brother claiming the tenancy in common but I could be wrong... Equity will generally consider commercial arrangements as tenants in common even where there does not exist a formal commercial relationship between the parties. The key point is that the tenancy in common is not subject to the right of survivorship and that is important in commercial arrangements. In Reilly there were two brothers, one got ill and so he played no part in the business. When the ill brother died he left his share to Reilly in his will. In court Reilly claimed he was entitled to it because as the brothers were in a commercial enterprise they held as tenants in common. Therefore one could leave his share to someone else by his will. The court ruled that there was no commercial relationship, it was familial and in addition, the deceased brother played no role in the business. So the brothers were joint tenants in equity and law. Thus the gift in the will to Reilly had no effect as the living brother succeeded under the right to survivorship..... Hope this helps you

JCJCJC

evercloserunion wrote: »

F*cking criminal! Terrible exam for me. Didn't study procedure, certainly didn't expect 3 questions to come up on it! Apart from that, struggled with remembering cases and legislation for the last two questions and struggled with time because there are so many points you could potentially make for each question.

Got the omissions, rape/sex assault and boat questions out okay, but the last two problem questions were very sketchy at best. Good chance I failed, which would be a pain in the arse. Maybe not though, I just don't know what kind of standard they expect.

I hadn't as much of the statute law memorised as I should have, so I was rough on fines and sentences, but I honestly thought it wasn't a difficult paper for anyone who had a decent amount done. It wouldn't have taken a lot at 5 am this morning when I was leaving home to persuade me to abandon it, but I'm glad I went - if it's marked kindly I'll have a chance - maybe. I was ok on cases and issue-spotting, and on the offences I think. Anyway, the low-Guinness light is flashing in my brain so I'm off to deal with that.
If anyone wants a copy of the paper, and/or the constitutional one, pm me tomorrow, and provided you're not the asswipe who tried to stiff me on a deal for materials a while back, I'll send it as a pdf file. I'd appreciate copies of recent EU and Company with an eye to next March.

jc

Cherry_Angel

Has anyone got any sample answers for property tomorrow?

frustratedTC

What u think will come up?

UberStressed

Does anyone know offhand what way landlord and tenant law came up in March?

Dal86

UberStressed wrote: »

Does anyone know offhand what way landlord and tenant law came up in March?

Essay question on deasy's act and residential tenancies act.

doing

That was the best exam paper you could possibly hope for. Treasure trove came up again, 2 pure succession questions, 1 pure squatting question and 1 half succession/half squatting question.

Hogzy

doing wrote: »

Treasure trove came up again,.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

AGAIN??????

doing

Hogzy wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

AGAIN??????

Everything from that first chapter in Griffith college is thrown in though to be fair, finding stuff in the ground, trespassing etc. Obviously this examiner wants people to know their basics.

evercloserunion

doing wrote: »

That was the best exam paper you could possibly hope for. Treasure trove came up again, 2 pure succession questions, 1 pure squatting question and 1 half succession/half squatting question.

Yeah I thought it was pretty nice. When a few of my friends were complaining about how hard it was I got a bit nervous, thought maybe I had missed a lot of issues but I guess it's a matter of what subjects you studied. I did the two succession questions, treasure trove, AP and the co-ownership one (which to be honest made me slightly uneasy, I feel like there were possibly issues I missed).

law girl

Yeah overall not too bad a paper, Co-ownership was an odd one though, lots of elements to cover and various different parties.

What was Q4, I really wasn't to too sure, it didn't matter to me in the end I had plenty of choice but just out of curiosity? Anyone hazard a guess?

Sun is shining, exams are done at least today can be enjoyed. Tomorrow the waiting game begins....

doing

evercloserunion wrote: »

Yeah I thought it was pretty nice. When a few of my friends were complaining about how hard it was I got a bit nervous, thought maybe I had missed a lot of issues but I guess it's a matter of what subjects you studied. I did the two succession questions, treasure trove, AP and the co-ownership one (which to be honest made me slightly uneasy, I feel like there were possibly issues I missed).

Yeah the co ownership one was the half squatting/half succession question I mentioned, I forgot about the co ownership aspect when I wrote that post.


Something I wasn't sure about with that question, that I'd forgotten about till just now, is Adam was the only one who hadn't established himself formally or in equity as a tenant in common out of the original 4 (presumed) joint owners. What did that make him? I said a tenant in common but I was very uncertain about that. I mean he could hardly be called a sole owner, even as the last remaining joint owner he still had 3 co owners who were tenants in common.

law girl

brian__foley wrote: »

Hi,

I thought I should just bring this up because its been asked a bit in PM and, indeed, suggested to me.

From what I see, more and more people each year are finding it harder to get the time to prepare for these exams. In the past, the prep courses (where-ever they may be) have tended to run for 14 or 15 weeks from November and onwards up to March.

It struck me that this doesn't make the best use of a holiday period which we all have.

So, at GCD I'm having the time-tables "front-loaded" in a way which will permit us to get as much material done as possible prior to Christmas. This will include some weekend classes (but all still online). The logic is that students would then have the full set of lectures etc there and ready considerably earlier than before. Equally, coming up the Christmas vacation there wouldn't be so long a "break" so to speak, as students would be able to continue with "fresh" lectures online, due to the front-loading of dates before Christmas.

Maybe this is unnecessary, but I certainly sense that work for many is no longer as accommodating with long time off prior to the exams. It made sense to me, therefore, to use the time you may have to the best possible extent and give the most possible exam-time / study time.

Obviously, it is the same course duration in the sense of hours, but I think this delivery method will be helpful to a lot of people who would like to "draw a line" under the courses earlier, and get to their own study sooner.

Regards

Brian

GCD

I think a front loaded approach is a very good idea, I certainly found difficulty in getting sufficient revision done once the classes had finished as I was trying to balance work and study.

For me it felt like I needed some time post classes to really get my head around what needed doing, formulate a proper study plan and ultimately execute it. Time was certainly a factor for me and before I knew where I was the exams were upon me. I did the GCD course over last Christmas and factors like cancelled class etc need to also be factored although to be fair this did not cause a huge impact but it certainly had the capacity to.

Classes are one thing but the real success in these exams is revision and being able to sufficiently cover all the relevant topics prior to the exam and this is where I fell down.

doing

law girl wrote: »

=
What was Q4, I really wasn't to too sure, it didn't matter to me in the end I had plenty of choice but just out of curiosity? Anyone hazard a guess?
.

I thought it was proprietary estoppel, liable to be mixed with promissory estoppel as in re JR a ward of court 1993, with detrimental reliance (greasey case with the maid etc), all from the licences chapter from the GCD book. I threw in a bit of contract on top of that, not sure if they'll accept that though (doctrine of part payment ). Said unless they falsely accused her of undue influence she should be grand though, and it isn't presumed with a child over a parent (ASB Bank v Howlick) and isn't presumed with Wills in general anyway so I said she should be grand.

law girl

doing wrote: »

I thought it was proprietary estoppel, liable to be mixed with promissory estoppel as in re JR a ward of court 1993, with detrimental reliance (greasey case with the maid etc), all from the licences chapter from the GCD book. I threw in a bit of contract on top of that, not sure if they'll accept that though (doctrine of part payment ). Said unless they falsely accused her of undue influence she should be grand though, and it isn't presumed with a child over a parent (ASB Bank v Howlick) and isn't presumed with Wills in general anyway so I said she should be grand.

Yeah, it just doesn't really seem like a property question if you know what mean. I'm glad I was in a position to avoid it I have to say, sounds like you had a good approach though.

evercloserunion

law girl wrote: »

Yeah, it just doesn't really seem like a property question if you know what mean. I'm glad I was in a position to avoid it I have to say, sounds like you had a good approach though.

I had to ask about this as well, as I had no idea. Basically it comes into licences, in particular estoppel licences. So says my friend anyway, I didn't study licences so I've no idea.

itsonlybla

law girl wrote: »

Yeah overall not too bad a paper, Co-ownership was an odd one though, lots of elements to cover and various different parties.

What was Q4, I really wasn't to too sure, it didn't matter to me in the end I had plenty of choice but just out of curiosity? Anyone hazard a guess?

Sun is shining, exams are done at least today can be enjoyed. Tomorrow the waiting game begins....

I avoided it, but from a quick skim read it seemed to have some licence / rights of residence stuff going on. possibly?

colonel1

itsonlybla wrote: »

I avoided it, but from a quick skim read it seemed to have some licence / rights of residence stuff going on. possibly?

That was my last question and I was really rushing it but it looked like rights of residence to me.

With regard to question 8, did anyone think the will was invalid and law of intestacy applied? I was really rushing this question too, so my answer was probably really off.

It was quite a nice paper, thought the treasure trove question was tricky depending on whether or not you decided Simon was a trespasser or not.

Need not have spent time studying mortgages or easements alas. Valuable time wasted there.

PG I did enough to pass:eek:

itsonlybla

He was partially intestate at least anyway so the rules would've applied i guess

UberStressed

colonel1 wrote: »

That was my last question and I was really rushing it but it looked like rights of residence to me.

With regard to question 8, did anyone think the will was invalid and law of intestacy applied? I was really rushing this question too, so my answer was probably really off.

It was quite a nice paper, thought the treasure trove question was tricky depending on whether or not you decided Simon was a trespasser or not.

Need not have spent time studying mortgages or easements alas. Valuable time wasted there.

PG I did enough to pass:eek:

I thought that the will was valid, just not the amendment to it no? Then rules of intestacy for the rest of his money that was not willed to anyone?
Overall, was happy with the paper, avoided the co-ownership even though had been hoping the topic would come up, too much going on in it and didn't have the time to go through it - Done the Janet and Mildred problem Q instead - what did people think? Did Janet have a claim on the house and did her taking of Mildreds money amount to satisfaction of some of her share on intestacy?
So relieved to be done(for now)!

evercloserunion

Enough of this property law talk, we're free! :P Can't wait to have my first beer in weeks.