FE1 Exam Thread (Read 1st post!) NOTICE: YOU MAY SWAP EXAM GRIDS

S12b

Section 18 simply requires the land to be adversely possessed for 12 years.

Mount Carmel Investments tells us periods of adverse possession by different squatters can be added together to hit the 12 years.

Watch out for hostility between squatters in a problem question though. This could cause the 12 year period to start over but if the handover between squatters is smooth then there is no break.

Milkypops

has anyone a sample answer on property rights/right to earn a livelihood?? i get confused as to how these two come together!

Ms.Cat

dandadub wrote: »

Probably the most difficult and bizarre paper I've sat yet. I feel like I'm destined never go get passed this first three. As someone said to me today imagine as a solicitor someone came to you demanding action against a neighbour for chopping up a beloved tree to make fire wood??

What Tort(s) exactly did this focus on by the way?

I also answered the dolphin question as a general negligence answer focusing mainly on the duty and standard of care owed to Walt by WB Council. Anyone else do something similar?

I answered the dolphin question with regard to animal liability, scienter, knowledge of a dangerous propensity, and the wood question re trespass to land/chattels but I was confused while I was answering. The questions were so badly worded, and I hope the marking will take this into account as people obviously answered questions very differently with honest differences of opinion! Fingers crossed!

CRM1

Ms.Cat wrote: »

I answered the dolphin question with regard to animal liability, scienter, knowledge of a dangerous propensity, and the wood question re trespass to land/chattels but I was confused while I was answering. The questions were so badly worded, and I hope the marking will take this into account as people obviously answered questions very differently with honest differences of opinion! Fingers crossed!

I must be the only one who answered it on occupiers liability. Anyways like you said some of the questions were confusing so here's hoping marking is ok!

MissLeo

Hey! How is everyone fixed for property tomorrow?

I've covered the following do you think I'll be safe enough or should I cover anything else?

Succession (requirements for valid will / s111 / s117 / s90
AP
Family Property
Co-Ownership
Landlord and Tenant (I have a funny feeling about this coming up even though lots of people are saying it's not!)
Easements
Licenses
Finding / Treasure Trove
Land Registration Systems

Is it risky to leave out mortgages? Just need to learn it all off by heart now ...

MissLeo

CRM1 wrote: »

I must be the only one who answered it on occupiers liability. Anyways like you said some of the questions were confusing so here's hoping marking is ok!

I answered on occupier's liability too! Started off with occupiers liability as they provided the viewing station, said that he was a recreational user and set out the requirements for reckless disregard. Then I moved on and discussed the scienter rule

Robbo

saor19 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me whether a share transfer is valid if not stamped by revenue?

Haven't seen the Company syllabus in a while, but that seems oddly procedural to be on it.

CRM1

MissLeo wrote: »

I answered on occupier's liability too! Started off with occupiers liability as they provided the viewing station, said that he was a recreational user and set out the requirements for reckless disregard. Then I moved on and discussed the scienter rule

This has brightened up my day. Yeah I mentioned case law re rathdown co co (something like that, name escapes me) where the lad dived in hit a rock was paralysed council were held liable and took that angle on it.

Shan89

Could anyone tell me what elements of mortgages were asked on the oct 2013 paper and the march 2014 paper?

If anyone has sample answers it would be a great help. Really confused on it.

Thanks

CRM1

Shan89 wrote: »

Could anyone tell me what elements of mortgages were asked on the oct 2013 paper and the march 2014 paper?

If anyone has sample answers it would be a great help. Really confused on it.

Thanks

It was a problem question re a mortgage taken out in 2006 - advise bank with reference to legal and policy developments of its options to enforce the mortgage. - October and March had a similar question again with the mortgage taken out in 2006

missindigo123

MissLeo wrote: »

Hey! How is everyone fixed for property tomorrow?

I've covered the following do you think I'll be safe enough or should I cover anything else?

Succession (requirements for valid will / s111 / s117 / s90
AP
Family Property
Co-Ownership
Landlord and Tenant (I have a funny feeling about this coming up even though lots of people are saying it's not!)
Easements
Licenses
Finding / Treasure Trove
Land Registration Systems

Is it risky to leave out mortgages? Just need to learn it all off by heart now ...

I am doing the same as you, I have just learned a note on judgement mortgages as they sometimes come up! I think you have loads of stuff there!!


Does anyone have any sample answers for the 2012/2013 papers for Land? Getting confused
Am I right in saying that a S117 application cannot be brought where the disputed property was left to the surviving parent?

I'm doing April 2013 question now, and Ollie is annoyed because his dad left all to his mother / and his twin sister? The mother is worried she will have to sell the family home to pay the sister her share and is further worried that she will have to give Ollie something?


Can the mam rely on S56 - if her share value is equal to the value of the dwelling, she can keep it but if her share value is less she can raise the money and pay it to the estate or she can include the shares of any infant who will then become a title holder?!

Confused.com!

Legal125

missindigo123 wrote: »

I am doing the same as you, I have just learned a note on judgement mortgages as they sometimes come up! I think you have loads of stuff there!!


Does anyone have any sample answers for the 2012/2013 papers for Land? Getting confused
Am I right in saying that a S117 application cannot be brought where the disputed property was left to the surviving parent?

I'm doing April 2013 question now, and Ollie is annoyed because his dad left all to his mother / and his twin sister? The mother is worried she will have to sell the family home to pay the sister her share and is further worried that she will have to give Ollie something?


Can the mam rely on S56 - if her share value is equal to the value of the dwelling, she can keep it but if her share value is less she can raise the money and pay it to the estate or she can include the shares of any infant who will then become a title holder?!

Confused.com!

S117 can be taken and must positive failure moral duty to provide. Can be done where other parent alive but u cannot erode the LRS of the surviving spouse by doing so(rather the courts can't) (children of civil partners can erode) and yep she can use s56 appropriation right

missindigo123

Legal125 wrote: »

S117 can be taken and must positive failure moral duty to provide. Can be done where other parent alive but u cannot erode the LRS of the surviving spouse by doing so(rather the courts can't) (children of civil partners can erode) and yep she can use s56 appropriation right

thank you!!!! :)

dinemo6

As the saying goes..... I would rather pelt sh!te at myself than be reading or writing about Company Law!!!

Shan89

CRM1 wrote: »

It was a problem question re a mortgage taken out in 2006 - advise bank with reference to legal and policy developments of its options to enforce the mortgage. - October and March had a similar question again with the mortgage taken out in 2006

Thanks, and what would they be looking to be included?

CRM1

Shan89 wrote: »

Thanks, and what would they be looking to be included?

Well like just be able to explain position before and after 2009 act, rights and powers of mortgagee, when does the power of sale arise and when does it become exercisable. And in terms of unreg and registered land, legal and equitable mortgages. It sounds more complicated than it is. Mortgages has got a run the last two times, I don't expect to see it tomorrow but I do have it done. Just divide it up into categories I found that to be a help and if it does appear pay attention to the date in the question.

chops018

Well that went much better than March's one. I actually predicted close enough to what type's of questions would appear, apart from Receivership and SLP being missing.

My only worry is that half way through my second last question I looked up and it was 12.10, so I rushed the last bit of that question and it was 12.20 going onto my final one - Q.8. I rushed the first part of it but got down an ok bit with the cases and proper legislative sections, however the other two parts I could only bullet point and put case names down as it was almost 12.30.

I really really hope he doesn't go hard on me for that as I did a very good first 3 and a half questions (I think). I know I spent too much time on them, but I had loads to write, which obviously led me to misjudge the time and maybe detriment my final question.

Here's hoping I passed, if the time problem didn't happen I would have been coming out feeling very confident.

MissLeo

Well done chops! Have been reading your posts on this for a while fingers crossed you pass the last one - most anticipated result ever hehe

kiwi33

CRM1 wrote: »

I must be the only one who answered it on occupiers liability. Anyways like you said some of the questions were confusing so here's hoping marking is ok!

I answered it as occupiers Liability as well.. I'm pretty sure that is what it was, I think perhaps we might have been challenged to discuss whether injury obtained by the dolphin fell under occupiers liability as usually it only has to do with dangers on the land, and not activities. So I raised the defence that possible going to see the dolphin was seen as an activity but still a duty to have warnings when they know of the aggressiveness and that the barrier should have been higher than one metre to prevent them from falling in. Probably all wrong! Who knows

kiwi33

I have a quick question on property law and construction/interpretation of will if anybody could help me out with a brief explanation of the following terms and any cases applicable. I left my notes back home for it!

Four corners principle,
Arm chair principle and
Latent and Patent Ambiguity

Thanks everyone

missindigo123

kiwi33 wrote: »

I have a quick question on property law and construction/interpretation of will if anybody could help me out with a brief explanation of the following terms and any cases applicable. I left my notes back home for it!

Four corners principle,
Arm chair principle and
Latent and Patent Ambiguity

Thanks everyone

Courts will try to interpret a will within its "four corners", so exactly as it is on the page. But if there is some ambiguity they will place themselves in the testators armchair, try work out the habits / behavior of the testator. ie extrinsic evidence!
latent ambiguity = when a clause in the will could be said to accurately describe two or more people or things and the ambiguity is not clarified in the terms of the will.
Re Julian is the main case! Lead to S90 being introduced, Rowe V Law weakened s90 = made a dual test, approved in Butler v Butler!!!

kiwi33

missindigo123 wrote: »

Courts will try to interpret a will within its "four corners", so exactly as it is on the page. But if there is some ambiguity they will place themselves in the testators armchair, try work out the habits / behavior of the testator. ie extrinsic evidence!
latent ambiguity = when a clause in the will could be said to accurately describe two or more people or things and the ambiguity is not clarified in the terms of the will.
Re Julian is the main case! Lead to S90 being introduced, Rowe V Law weakened s90 = made a dual test, approved in Butler v Butler!!!

cheers!!

CRM1

kiwi33 wrote: »

I have a quick question on property law and construction/interpretation of will if anybody could help me out with a brief explanation of the following terms and any cases applicable. I left my notes back home for it!

Four corners principle,
Arm chair principle and
Latent and Patent Ambiguity

Thanks everyone

Ah yeah I forgot about the dolphin at the end, I was too preoccupied with the council and what they should have done when it was reported to them.

As for the above four corners - read the will as it is on its ordinary meaning within the four corners as it is and exclude all external factors such as what others might be arguing that it means something else.

Armchair principle - all wills to be read as they were written immediately before death sit in the armchair of the testator.

Ambiguity - re extrinsic evidence and the admittance of such s90 must be such ambiguity so as it cannot be reasonably stated what was meant eg the case involving the woman who left money to a seaman institute but solicitor recorded address incorrectly - wasn't sufficient ambiguity could still make out where money was to go. Basically the courts will not rewrite a testators dying wishes unless there are compelling reasons to do so.

MissLeo

Could someone help me with this?

Studying property - co-ownership: if a judgment mortgage is registered against the interest of one of the joint tenants, what effect does this have? Does it sever to a TIC or does it not affect it? My notes are conflicting. I have written down that if its on unregistered land, it converts to a TIC but the others remain in a JT with each other and if it's registered land, the position is unclear. However I have also written down in my notes that s30(3) of the LCLRA 2009 states a judgment mortgage wont sever a JT if it's only registered against the interest of one of the JTs

Can anyone offer and clarification on this point?

Milkypops

any one have eoin carolans top ten cases of 2012??

missindigo123

Can anyone help with a question on co-owenership?

4 students but a hose together for €100,000, one paid €40,000 the others €20,000 each. house put in their names equally and registered in all of their names.
next year, one leaves - sells her interest
next tenant, gets married and leaves his property to his wife - he later dies
remaining tenants start fighting and want to sell
but the other two dont want to sell.
notice of serverance was sent but wrong person signed for it...

Are they Joint Tenants even though unequal purchase price?
If so, friend one who sells her share... the person who buys it becomes a tenant in common to the others, but they remain as joint tenants in their relationship with each other?

the guy who gets married and dies - cant leave his share to his wife - right of survivorship?


the last two? can one of the parties sell over the intention of the other party???

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

missindigo123

MissLeo wrote: »

Could someone help me with this?

Studying property - co-ownership: if a judgment mortgage is registered against the interest of one of the joint tenants, what effect does this have? Does it sever to a TIC or does it not affect it? My notes are conflicting. I have written down that if its on unregistered land, it converts to a TIC but the others remain in a JT with each other and if it's registered land, the position is unclear. However I have also written down in my notes that s30(3) of the LCLRA 2009 states a judgment mortgage wont sever a JT if it's only registered against the interest of one of the JTs

Can anyone offer and clarification on this point?

im pretty sure the joint tenancy remains unsevered & it is extinguished upon death of the judgement debtor

safc_pete

missindigo123 wrote: »

Can anyone help with a question on co-owenership?

4 students but a hose together for €100,000, one paid €40,000 the others €20,000 each. house put in their names equally and registered in all of their names.
next year, one leaves - sells her interest
next tenant, gets married and leaves his property to his wife - he later dies
remaining tenants start fighting and want to sell
but the other two dont want to sell.
notice of serverance was sent but wrong person signed for it...

Are they Joint Tenants even though unequal purchase price?
If so, friend one who sells her share... the person who buys it becomes a tenant in common to the others, but they remain as joint tenants in their relationship with each other?

the guy who gets married and dies - cant leave his share to his wife - right of survivorship?


the last two? can one of the parties sell over the intention of the other party???

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

It's a Joint Tenancy. The common law will presume for a JT unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. On alienation to a third party, a TIC is created between the third party and the remaining joint tenants. The JTs remain as joint tenants to each other.

The joint tenant who dies can't leave it to his wife, the right to survivorship means that his share goes to the other joint tenant.

You used to be able to sell your interest in a JT without the consent of the others (Re Gilburn) but that is no longer the case following the LCLRA 2009.

missindigo123

safc_pete wrote: »

It's a Joint Tenancy. The common law will presume for a JT unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. On alienation to a third party, a TIC is created between the third party and the remaining joint tenants. The JTs remain as joint tenants to each other.

The joint tenant who dies can't leave it to his wife, the right to survivorship means that his share goes to the other joint tenant.

You used to be able to sell your interest in a JT without the consent of the others (Re Gilburn) but that is no longer the case following the LCLRA 2009.

Thanks a million

Jane132

Revised "Night before" went up on City Colleges website this morning, would have been good to have them the night before the Company exam!

What did anyone else think of it? I really don think I had enough to pass. My topics just did not appear, and where they did my mind was just blank of caselaw! Does anyone else have this problem where you just cannot remember case names? I had three ok questions, one dodgy one and then the one on shares was just waffle! I would appreciate anyone elses comments!