FE1 Exam Thread (Mod Warning: NO ADS)

chops018

roisinfitch wrote: »

So it wasnt proprietary estoppel?! Did anyone think the succession question ended with intestancy?? Such a tricky paper!

I pointed out that it might end with intestacy and said what would happen if it did, however I did note that the courts usually try their best not to end with intestacy. I can't remember but I think I forgot the solicitor tore up the new will so I said that if it wasn't destroyed properly then the courts may give it effect. Didn't mention if it was destroyed properly or not, forgot he tore it up to be honest, I just mentioned intestacy and that if not destroyed properly the old will can have effect. Didn't delve into it too much though. Concentrated on s. 77 and 78 and the possibility of the proper provision for Tracey under s. 117 if she ends up getting nothing. Only spent a bit of time on the revocation/intestacy part, hopefully I'll get marks for bringing it up, although I'm questioning my conclusion a bit now....

JLex

chops018 wrote: »

They said there are nine topics for careful revision:

- Injunctions, particularly Mareva.
- Specific Performance.
- Rectification.
- Undue Influence.
- Secret Trusts.
- Charitable Trusts.
- Quistclose Trusts.
- Trusteeship.
- Tracing.

I'm kinda raging the three certainties and non charitable purpose trusts aren't on it, I have a good knowledge of them, also proprietary estoppel.

Anyway of the above tips I have Mareva covered, part of specific performance covered (mainly with regard sale of land), most of rectification, part of undue influence (the UI to third parties, with regard the banks and guarantors), Charitable Trusts (espcially relief of poverty and advancement of education.

Along with those 5 from the tips and the 3 I mentioned above that's what I have done, does anyone think that tonight I should do another couple from the tips as back up then use Saturday and Sunday for revision? I was also thinking of covering resulting trusts (joint bank accounts) as that sometimes comes up?

thanks for that i would still revise 3 certs and DMC .......thats always on the exam.

evercloserunion

chops018 wrote: »

They said there are nine topics for careful revision:

- Injunctions, particularly Mareva.
- Specific Performance.
- Rectification.
- Undue Influence.
- Secret Trusts.
- Charitable Trusts.
- Quistclose Trusts.
- Trusteeship.
- Tracing.

I'm kinda raging the three certainties and non charitable purpose trusts aren't on it, I have a good knowledge of them, also proprietary estoppel.

Anyway of the above tips I have Mareva covered, part of specific performance covered (mainly with regard sale of land), most of rectification, part of undue influence (the UI to third parties, with regard the banks and guarantors), Charitable Trusts (espcially relief of poverty and advancement of education.

Along with those 5 from the tips and the 3 I mentioned above that's what I have done, does anyone think that tonight I should do another couple from the tips as back up then use Saturday and Sunday for revision? I was also thinking of covering resulting trusts (joint bank accounts) as that sometimes comes up?

Just FYI, last time they also gave out night before notes for equity and some of their predictions were fairly far off. People who relied too heavily on their predictions ended up getting screwed.

So don't put too much stock in those tips, it's good to know the areas mentioned of course but don't neglect the other areas you've studied just because they're not there.

RebelScorned

roisinfitch wrote: »

So it wasnt proprietary estoppel?! Did anyone think the succession question ended with intestancy?? Such a tricky paper!

yeah i did, i basically quickly went through first will- seemed to be all ok- if this will was valid then i briefly mentioned how s111 and 117 might apply had Ben not made proper provision etc etc - that will revoked by Norris when he tore it up on Ben's instruction and presumption there was not another copy elsewhere- second will not valid because not signed- because will 1 was revoked and will 2 was not validly attested, i applied rules of intestacy- 2/3 for Deirdre and 1/3 for Tracey, and then i threw in doctrine of hotchpot for Tracey too. That was just my interpretation of the question- i really disliked it though, it took so long. Was anybody else thinking along same lines?

dinemo6

Licences...... god damn it!!!!

Wrote a bit about estoppel - was just chancing my arm really but licences crossed my mind and i didn't bother putting it down!
Would surely have gotten a mark or two for it. :mad:

Think I did the same thing on Tue about nuisance if I remember correctly!

chops018

juliach wrote: »

thanks for that i would still revise 3 certs and DMC .......thats always on the exam.

No bother, equity can be tricky.. dream paper would be: charitable - relief of poverty/advancement of education, proprietary estoppel, UI - third parties, specific performance - sale of land, trustees duties - investment..

Wouldn't mind then about mareva, and 3 certainties as back up revision. Might do a back up tonight - dunno what to choose though? Any suggestions for a back up or two, leaning towards resulting trusts - joint bank accounts.

RebelScorned

evercloserunion wrote: »

Just FYI, last time they also gave out night before notes for equity and some of their predictions were fairly far off. People who relied too heavily on their predictions ended up getting screwed.

So don't put too much stock in those tips, it's good to know the areas mentioned of course but don't neglect the other areas you've studied just because they're not there.

I agree with alan on this- i did griffith course for last oct exam and relied too much on his predictions and i didn't have my five questions- i don't really think those notes are tips per se, i mean looking at grids you can surmise that those topics are either amongst most popular or due a run... imo last paper a bit equity heavy so hoping that this one will lean more towards trusts questions, which apparently peeps, are easier to score marks in. And i just like trusts more than equity part- i mean why did both griffith and city colleges 'tip' specific performance when it has come up on last 3 papers i think? don't have grid to hand

chops018

RebelScorned wrote: »

yeah i did, i basically quickly went through first will- seemed to be all ok- if this will was valid then i briefly mentioned how s111 and 117 might apply had Ben not made proper provision etc etc - that will revoked by Norris when he tore it up on Ben's instruction and presumption there was not another copy elsewhere- second will not valid because not signed- because will 1 was revoked and will 2 was not validly attested, i applied rules of intestacy- 2/3 for Deirdre and 1/3 for Tracey, and then i threw in doctrine of hotchpot for Tracey too. That was just my interpretation of the question- i really disliked it though, it took so long. Was anybody else thinking along same lines?

I was very similar to you..... noted about the revocation and intestacy, didn't go too much into it though, never bothered with the s. 111, raging I didn't mention it. Got in a good discussion on s. 117 though, and yes it took way too long. Other than that I'd say I did fairly ok info wise and case wise, conclusion might not be right but most of the marks will be for the info in the answer....

On to equity later and all day tomorrow and Sunday !!

RebelScorned

chops018 wrote: »

No bother, equity can be tricky.. dream paper would be: charitable - relief of poverty/advancement of education, proprietary estoppel, UI - third parties, specific performance - sale of land, trustees duties - investment..

Wouldn't mind then about mareva, and 3 certainties as back up revision. Might do a back up tonight - dunno what to choose though? Any suggestions for a back up or two, leaning towards resulting trusts - joint bank accounts.

i'd prepare quia timet aswell, very straightforward problem Q usually and anton piller hasn't come up in a while, i think 6/7 cases in my manual and a bit about priv self-incrimination.
if you are doing charitable also cover cypres and purpose cos i reckon a whopper problem q might be due incorporating those- i.e. failed charitable gift or trust for statue or animal or sth in list of bequests of testator.
automatic resulting trusts hasn't come up in aaaages- i.e. failure to exhaust beneficial interest and quistclose
secret trusts due a run....
would love problem q on donatio mortis causa
and tracing hasn't been up in a while....

sorry that's probably adding alot but just my two cents worth!

doing

chops018 wrote: »

Q5. Actually not too sure what it was about at the time, it was a problem question seeing if the person had an interest in the house, she was a housekeeper but went above and beyond that and cared for the owner, said she expected to get the home etc. Realised now that it was a problem question on whether the house keeper had a licence to stay in the house.

Promissery Estoppel?

Gillette v Holt?

Greasey versus Cooke 1980? : A maid lives with a family rent free for 30 years, looks after mentally disabled woman? I thought it was almost that exact case?

mirm

In the succession act it says re revocation that a will won't be revoked by someone who nominated someone to destroy it unless they are in the presence of each other...

doing

mirm wrote: »

In the succession act it says re revocation that a will won't be revoked by someone who nominated someone to destroy it unless they are in the presence of each other...

Well he can't fail us all!

chops018

RebelScorned wrote: »

i'd prepare quia timet aswell, very straightforward problem Q usually and anton piller hasn't come up in a while, i think 6/7 cases in my manual and a bit about priv self-incrimination.
if you are doing charitable also cover cypres and purpose cos i reckon a whopper problem q might be due incorporating those- i.e. failed charitable gift or trust for statue or animal or sth in list of bequests of testator.
automatic resulting trusts hasn't come up in aaaages- i.e. failure to exhaust beneficial interest and quistclose
secret trusts due a run....
would love problem q on donatio mortis causa
and tracing hasn't been up in a while....

sorry that's probably adding alot but just my two cents worth!

Cheers for that haha, would be a lot to get in over one night but I might pull a couple from it and cover them tonight to add to my revision tomorrow and Sunday.

The way I've been doing it is covering the 5 topics that come up most and adding 3 topics. Didn't work for property today as I was only able to do 4 out of the 8 and just chanced a 5th. So panicking a bit for equity which is why I want to cover another couple of areas, especially as equity has huge areas which people only seem to cover parts i.e. trustees duties, most people (including myself) cover duty to invest from that topic.

mirm

doing wrote: »

mirm wrote: »

In the succession act it says re revocation that a will won't be revoked by someone who nominated someone to destroy it unless they are in the presence of each other...

Well he can't fail us all!

I don't that's wat I read today!

Glinda!

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!

Feel exact same had so much done for Constitutional only to draw a complete blank for my last two questions had exact FoE v Privacy Question done out from College but couldnt get it out of my head and onto the paper! And had guessed either Locus Standi or Seperation of Powers would come up and of course picked da wring 1 2 look at! UGGGHHH! :mad:

My other 3 questions were good but cant see going to pass on jus those 3 and 3 pages of crap i vomited on the paper for the last 2! Unsure if I did enough in Company either to pass and as my 1st sitting need to pass 3. So disheartnin hvn 2 face studyin for next week feeling that Im wastin my time if i havent passed my first 2.

Can anyone offer any guidance as to how high a standard is needed to pass? I realised after 1st exam studied topics in far too much detail. Too much to remember and never gona hv enuf time to write it all down. Far better off to learn few main cases of many topics than all of few topics your only limiting yourself 2 wat u can answer. Hv learned my lesson!

doing

mirm wrote: »

I don't that's wat I read today!

I just opened my succession act and you're right, that's me finished on that question. Said he died intestate and that meant the spouse got 66% and the daughter got 33% of the 6 million. Talked about all the other stuff too but still if the conclusions wrong that's probably that...

chops018

doing wrote: »

I just opened my succession act and you're right, that's me finished on that question. Said he died intestate and that meant the spouse got 66% and the daughter got 33% of the 6 million.

But just because you came to the wrong conclusion doesn't mean much does it, surely you will get good few marks for discussing s 77 and 78 and revocation and possibility of s. 111 and s. 117 and come to your own conclusion then?

doing

chops018 wrote: »

But just because you came to the wrong conclusion doesn't mean much does it, surely you will get good few marks for discussing s 77 and 78 and revocation and possibility of s. 111 and s. 117 and come to your own conclusion then?

We'll see...

I talked about 111 and 117 extensively, I thought I'd made a big mistake going off on a tangeant about what would have happened if the will hadn't been revoked and why they should both be delighted with what they got but it might save me yet. They mark these things fairly hard though.

RebelScorned

doing wrote: »

I just opened my succession act and you're right, that's me finished on that question. Said he died intestate and that meant the spouse got 66% and the daughter got 33% of the 6 million. Talked about all the other stuff too but still if the conclusions wrong that's probably that...

i read that in my succession act too but then i was thinking if norris tore up the will and tossed it in bin, and presuming there were no other copies, that Ben died without a will unless Norris can recite the will from memory and courts would accept that like in Sugden case

boomtown84

@ Glinda: study hard for next week. It's literally impossible to predict how they'll mark the papers. I've come out of exams crying my little heart out and ending up passing.....i've also left exams doing a highland fling and failed. Study hard and put in the hours for next week. If nothing else it will stand to ya for October.

doing

RebelScorned wrote: »

i read that in my succession act too but then i was thinking if norris tore up the will and tossed it in bin, and presuming there were no other copies, that Ben died without a will unless Norris can recite the will from memory and courts would accept that like in Sugden case

Oh you're right actually, and Dierdre doesn't know the will exists so she's not going to sue.

chops018

doing wrote: »

Yeah that's a good point, I have no idea what they do in that scenario. You're not allowed to destroy the will that way but at the end of the day... there is no will so he is intestate.

I'm getting a bit panicky here, I was happy with all the info I had in that question and with my discussions apart from the conclusion, and possibly whether he was intestate or about the revocation. But the way ye are talking it seems like if you don't come to the right conclusion even though you discussed 80% of the relevant stuff you will fail the question?

LegalEagle89

I have EU sample answers from independent colleges, would love to swap for griffith/city colleges ones if some kind person had them?

doing

chops018 wrote: »

I'm getting a bit panicky here, I was happy with all the info I had in that question and with my discussions apart from the conclusion, and possibly whether he was intestate or about the revocation. But the way ye are talking it seems like if you don't come to the right conclusion even though you discussed 80% of the relevant stuff you will fail the question?

What I wrote there was wrong anyway I changed it, rebelscorned is right.

DeSourire

dinemo6 wrote: »

Licences...... god damn it!!!!

Wrote a bit about estoppel - was just chancing my arm really but licences crossed my mind and i didn't bother putting it down!
Would surely have gotten a mark or two for it. :mad:

Think I did the same thing on Tue about nuisance if I remember correctly!

I thought it was estoppel aswel, I threw in a bit about licences aswel but that could have been wrong, I wouldn't doubt urself

Glinda!

boomtown84 wrote: »

@ Glinda: study hard for next week. It's literally impossible to predict how they'll mark the papers. I've come out of exams crying my little heart out and ending up passing.....i've also left exams doing a highland fling and failed. Study hard and put in the hours for next week. If nothing else it will stand to ya for October.

Cheers for that boomtown! Needed the pep talk! The thoughts of havin to go bac 2 square 1 and be lookin at the same thing again til Oct is jus a mental block to wanting 2 do netin! Wudnt care if hadnt done the work for them! Now for more luvly study :eek:

chops018

doing wrote: »

What I wrote there was wrong anyway I changed it, rebelscorned is right.

Yes but even so what is the story on doing a question and addressing the right cases discussing the right issues but missing one little bit which leads to you be wrong in your conclusion or partly wrong, how much do they penalise you?

doing

chops018 wrote: »

Yes but even so what is the story on doing a question and addressing the right cases discussing the right issues but missing one little bit which leads to you be wrong in your conclusion or partly wrong, how much do they penalise you?

I don't know. Nothing you can do about it now best forget about it, you'll find out in a few months.

chops018

doing wrote: »

I don't know. Nothing you can do about it now best forget about it, you'll find out in a few months.

Very true. Moving my mind onto equity from 6pm onwards, right after a walk and bit of dinner.

RebelScorned

chops018 wrote: »

Yes but even so what is the story on doing a question and addressing the right cases discussing the right issues but missing one little bit which leads to you be wrong in your conclusion or partly wrong, how much do they penalise you?

i wouldn't panic too much- i actually asked Ross Aylward from Griffith about how examiners mark and in his educated opinion, he said you get marks for an attempt the way you do in maths in the leaving cert, even if you come to the wrong conclusion, you may pick up marks on the way for an attempt, cases you mentioned etc. I don't think you would get an automatic zero for coming to wrong conclusion the way you would if you just wrote about entirely wrong topic. Don't fret, i remember in tort last october i spent a whole question rambling about chickens and eggs and if pellets that affected their digestive systems actually affected eggs etc- i thought i crashed and burned on that but still passed exam well. I'm sure examiners don't skip to the conclusion first when they are correcting!