FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

filosoraptor

Also, did anyone notice a question on locus standii that I may have missed or did it just not come up?

qz

noseriously wrote: »

OK, so I'm doing:
Succession
Finding/Treasure Trove
Family Property
Registered and Unregistered Land
Easements
Adverse Possession
Mortgages
Does that sound OK or do I need to do co-ownership as well?

Co ownership isn't too unwieldy a topic, I'd go over it. Cover it to the extent that you know the basics and can have it as a less than satisfactory 5th question if needs be. Better that than being stuck.

ryan606

banterful wrote: »

Scrap the last post - as finished constitutional now and have property tomorrow would really love an answer on this from anyone who knows their stuff on finding - all the examiner reports say that the OCCUPIER gets it if within the land - does that mean, for example, that a lessee with a 99 year lease gets to keep it or will it still go to the owner?? Thanks to anyone who knows - this came up as an issue on one of the recent exams so would really appreciate the help!

Lessor gets it over lessee- look up Elwes v Brigg, case involved a 99 year lease, lessee found object 'in' land and it was held to belong to the lessor.

UberStressed

Is the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows abolished entirely or does it apply to easements which could have been created before the act came into being? For example, if land was bought pre-2009 and there should have been an easement under the rule, but for some reason it is only being acquired now? Or is it just created under s.40?

chops018

UberStressed wrote: »

Is the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows abolished entirely or does it apply to easements which could have been created before the act came into being? For example, if land was bought pre-2009 and there should have been an easement under the rule, but for some reason it is only being acquired now? Or is it just created under s.40?

Looking at De Londras book and she said that the new system under section 40 applies from 1st of December 2009, which would mean that any tract's of land concerning quasi easements that would have been easements had it not been for the fact the possessor was the owner would be elevated to an easement if the owner is selling part of the land and retaining another part - per the rule in wheeldon .v. burrows. But anything after 2009 would mean that they would only become easements if it was necessary to enjoy the land (section 40.2.a.) or if it was reasonable that the parties would have adverted to this matter, to assume at the date of the disposition took effect as being included in it. (b).

I'm assuming that this means if there is a problem question concerning this and the land in question was bought after 2009 and then the land retained would get the quasi easements elevated to easements if it was necessary e.g. land locked the land - Dwyer Nolan Developments case. or if it was reasonable to assume that both parties intended this to be an easement at the diposition, courts would then most likely look at common intentions of the parties etc.

That's the way I'd take it if it was me.

banterful

Just looking at succession - the manuals seem to say contradictory things about Clery v Barry on attestation of witnesses - does anyone know if this case CONFINED the presumption of due execution to where the witnesses were dead/ incapacitated/ gave unreliable evidence or did it EXCLUDE the presumption of due execution in these circumstances??

chops018

banterful wrote: »

Just looking at succession - the manuals seem to say contradictory things about Clery v Barry on attestation of witnesses - does anyone know if this case CONFINED the presumption of due execution to where the witnesses were dead/ incapacitated/ gave unreliable evidence or did it EXCLUDE the presumption of due execution in these circumstances??

There is only a small part about it in De Londras book, she states: In Clery .v. Barry, the court held that the presumption should enjoy its full force only where the witnesses cannot give evidence (by death or incapacity) or where the evidence of the witnesses cannot be accepted because the witnesses themselves are deemed unreliable.

Seems to me it can relate to other circumstances, the footnote even provides another case on the area - Rolleston .v. Sinclair (1924).

JLex

filosoraptor wrote: »

Anyone have any input as to what the issues in Q7 were about? Talked about right to livelihood mainly but have a feeling there were others in there that I missed??

heya,
wrote about right to earn livelihood, property rights, proportionality.

banterful

chops018 wrote: »

There is only a small part about it in De Londras book, she states: In Clery .v. Barry, the court held that the presumption should enjoy its full force only where the witnesses cannot give evidence (by death or incapacity) or where the evidence of the witnesses cannot be accepted because the witnesses themselves are deemed unreliable.

Seems to me it can relate to other circumstances, the footnote even provides another case on the area - Rolleston .v. Sinclair (1924).

Thanks chops, my lecturer never even referred to this limit to the presumption so not sure whether to even bring it up now! Does anyone know what the definitive situation is - does the presumption of due execution now only apply to cases where the witnesses are unavailable to give evidence?

Thanks in advance!

chops018

banterful wrote: »

Thanks chops, my lecturer never even referred to this limit to the presumption so not sure whether to even bring it up now! Does anyone know what the definitive situation is - does the presumption of due execution now only apply to cases where the witnesses are unavailable to give evidence?

Thanks in advance!

If it comes up in part of the succession question and you are unsure you could say that the case law seems to provide for such and such as seen by the above cases and then say the courts will more than likely follow these decisions and come to the conclusion that the will should be given full force as the witnesses were deemed unreliable. This is similar to the facts in the above scenario where it is stated that one witness is now dead and the other is suffering from a mental illness. e.g. senile dementia (just a partly made up scenario from my own head). And if the court follows the above decision(s) there will be a presumption of due execution and it will be given full force. That's what I'd write if it came up, don't be worried to much, it's just related to section 78 requirements, not the be all and end all, but I suppose it could be the difference of coming to the correct conclusion or not. Don't think it was confined to the certain circumstances of the Clery case, I know there isn't much on it but as I said if it is a thing you need to bring it in just say the courts will rely on that decision and give the will full force etc.

chops018

I have Landlord and Tenant covered but I'm a bit weary about it as they always ask about Deasy's Act and Residential Tenancies Act 2004, this means a lot of legislation will have to be remembered which I'm no good at, I'm better with cases and maybe just a small bit of legislation. Wouldn't mind a Lease/Licence distinction question but don't think they ask that type anymore?

Should I not bother with it and study at the other topics I have covered?

JohnyWalker

I heard from a very good source that succession wont be coming up this year!!! f..ked!

Gibbonw2

So disheartening doing all this study to just screw up on your exam methods! For all the money you pay for books/tutorials/notes and answers it really just comes down to your ability to chill out and transfer your knowledge into writing! Was a bag of nerues this morning and i think that will be the difference between a mid 40s and 50 %! Could of answered every q on the paper apart 4rm 2 of the case notes but my application was just terrible! First fe1 so no comparable basis but 33 minutes is just so tough, especially on issues like prop rights! Oh well, will have to try hard to motivate myself for eu and contract. I answered q1, the inviolability one, art 26, the right to livelihood 1 and sep of powers! Had so muck knowledhe but just couldnt formulate it onto paper! Roll on october!

moonbino

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

So disheartening doing all this study to just screw up on your exam methods! For all the money you pay for books/tutorials/notes and answers it really just comes down to your ability to chill out and transfer your knowledge into writing! Was a bag of nerues this morning and i think that will be the difference between a mid 40s and 50 %! Could of answered every q on the paper apart 4rm 2 of the case notes but my application was just terrible! First fe1 so no comparable basis but 33 minutes is just so tough, especially on issues like prop rights! Oh well, will have to try hard to motivate myself for eu and contract. I answered q1, the inviolability one, art 26, the right to livelihood 1 and sep of powers! Had so muck knowledhe but just couldnt formulate it onto paper! Roll on october!

Cheer up, at least your memory is good. You can work on answering questions by practising and getting feedback from lecturers. For all you know you passed. Good luck. :-)

DeSourire

JohnyWalker wrote: »

I heard from a very good source that succession wont be coming up this year!!! f..ked!

WHAT!!!! That is insane! How could you have possibly heard that? U must have heard what is coming up then...tell on!!

Gibbonw2

Oh and on a slightly lighthearted topic, i had forgotten to put my details on the front! I started to write them at d end and i practically had to wrestle my exam paper from the invigilator who wasnt happy waiting 5 seconds!

lolita60

JohnyWalker wrote: »

I heard from a very good source that succession wont be coming up this year!!! f..ked!

My god what a pity that this is your first post... Sounds like you have the info that we would all love to have!! :rolleyes:

Fe1erere

Gibbonw2 wrote: »

So disheartening doing all this study to just screw up on your exam methods! For all the money you pay for books/tutorials/notes and answers it really just comes down to your ability to chill out and transfer your knowledge into writing! Was a bag of nerues this morning and i think that will be the difference between a mid 40s and 50 %! Could of answered every q on the paper apart 4rm 2 of the case notes but my application was just terrible! First fe1 so no comparable basis but 33 minutes is just so tough, especially on issues like prop rights! Oh well, will have to try hard to motivate myself for eu and contract. I answered q1, the inviolability one, art 26, the right to livelihood 1 and sep of powers! Had so muck knowledhe but just couldnt formulate it onto paper! Roll on october!

Remember you only need 3, have a look at youtube the whisper song "Cheat" might relax you when you sit in...works for me

noseriously

They can't leave succession off! I mean the papers we usually get are ridiculous enough, they ALWAYS seem to ask finding even though it's such a rare thing for a solicitor to have to deal with...it's supposed to test how suitable a solicitor you'll be and from what I've seen Property from a solictor's perspective is basically just conveyancing and bloody Probate!

moonbino

lolita60 wrote: »

JohnyWalker wrote: »

I heard from a very good source that succession wont be coming up this year!!! f..ked!

My god what a pity that this is your first post... Sounds like you have the info that we would all love to have!! :rolleyes:

I don't believe you but if you are right blurting it out on Boards will only have the paper reset and rescheduled.

Fe1erere

moonbino wrote: »

I don't believe you but if you are right blurting it out on Boards will only have the paper reset and rescheduled.

Jonny walker by name, jonny walker by nature:D

ryan606

JohnyWalker wrote: »

I heard from a very good source that succession wont be coming up this year!!! f..ked!

this cant be true...!

Hogzy

ryan606 wrote: »

this cant be true...!

That poster has no inside knowledge. There has never been any concrete tips in the history of the FE1's

UberStressed

JohnyWalker wrote: »

I heard from a very good source that succession wont be coming up this year!!! f..ked!

Go away...

Fe1erere

Hogzy wrote: »

That poster has no inside knowledge. There has never been any concrete tips in the history of the FE1's

I'll give you a concrete tip Hogzy. There will be a succession question on the paper tomorrow..Now!:D

JCJCJC

JohnyWalker wrote: »

I heard from a very good source that succession wont be coming up this year!!! f..ked!

Well, there won't be succession on seven of the eight papers. On the Property law paper, there might be an essay -'write all you know on how to be a troll on a discussion board and waste a whole lot of people's time when they have better things to be thinking about'.

brannid3

JCJCJC wrote: »

Well, there won't be succession on seven of the eight papers. On the Property law paper, there might be an essay -'write all you know on how to be a troll on a discussion board and waste a whole lot of people's time when they have better things to be thinking about'.

:cool:

Jev/N

He's bullshitting you to freak everyone out - simple as

chops018

Just wondering are we allowed to write on the exam paper, in college when doing an exam I'd read the question and jot down cases and points on the actual exam paper beside the question.

UberStressed

chops018 wrote: »

Just wondering are we allowed to write on the exam paper, in college whne doing an exam I'd read the question and jot down cases and points on the actual exam paper beside the question.

Yup, mine is always covered in notes..