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

safc_pete

Jane132 wrote: »

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

There's no change in the property notes...

MissM89

I thought the Company papers was a bit of a disaster too to be honest, like 3 very obsecure questions - shares, meetings and receivership was a bit unfair, as well as ultra vires being repeared again from the March sitting. All in all, bad start to the exams!

Jane132

safc_pete wrote: »

There's no change in the property notes...

There are some changes to the Company exams, giving a bit of advice on what topics to cover from the March exam- bit late at that stage!

safc_pete

Jane132 wrote: »

There are some changes to the Company exams, giving a bit of advice on what topics to cover from the March exam- bit late at that stage!

Looking at the Contract and Equity NBNs, they have updated them. Thanks for the heads up!!

CRM1

Yeah just seen the notes for EU from City... It's gonna be a long weekend.

Legal125

Q on wills please and revocation...

If the testator calls the solicitor and tells him to cancel will and solicitor draws line through or throws away is that sufficient act of destruction and intention to revoke or no?

And in the problem Qs where they make a will find out someone is cheating and decide to change but new will never execute does dependant relative revocation come into play as per onions v tyres ie. revoke a will on condition of making a subsequent will of subs never made/ invalid the first will operates? Is that correct
Anyone help, please

safc_pete

Legal125 wrote: »

Q on wills please and revocation...

If the testator calls the solicitor and tells him to cancel will and solicitor draws line through or throws away is that sufficient act of destruction and intention to revoke or no?

And in the problem Qs where they make a will find out someone is cheating and decide to change but new will never execute does dependant relative revocation come into play as per onions v tyres ie. revoke a will on condition of making a subsequent will of subs never made/ invalid the first will operates? Is that correct
Anyone help, please

Destruction should be intentional, complete and by or at the direction of the testator in their presence. So it is not a sufficient act of destruction if the testator is not present.

A will can be revoked by a revocation clause with formalities. Don't think that the unexecuted new will is sufficient.

nownow

Hey, could someone post what came up on the company paper today please ?

omgnaire

Hey guys! Just got my hands on succession act! Does anyone know if it'll b okay to hand it in in the morning at 8! Thanks in advance!

safc_pete

omgnaire wrote: »

Hey guys! Just got my hands on succession act! Does anyone know if it'll b okay to hand it in in the morning at 8! Thanks in advance!

I'm in the same boat as you. From what I've heard, we can hand it in early, but we mightn't have it for the start of the exam.

omgnaire

safc_pete wrote: »

I'm in the same boat as you. From what I've heard, we can hand it in early, but we mightn't have it for the start of the exam.

Okay perfect! hopefully! As long as we have it at some stage during it, we'll b grand!!! Thanks! Best of luck!

saor19

omgnaire wrote: »

Okay perfect! hopefully! As long as we have it at some stage during it, we'll b grand!!! Thanks! Best of luck!

I only handed my company book in today and I had it on my table at 10 o'clock. Loads of people did it! Last thing you want is to be worrying about not having your legislation!

dowistrepla

Very late in the day to be asking this but anyway...

In relation to a probem Q on easements, would I be right in saying that all the methods of acquiring easements them under the 2009 Act are in force now except for prescription, and that because of the Civil Law Bill 2011 in getting an easement for prescription you can use the old law or new law up until 2021, so in reality the old law would apply for a problem Q?

Legal125

dowistrepla wrote: »

Very late in the day to be asking this but anyway...

In relation to a probem Q on easements, would I be right in saying that all the methods of acquiring easements them under the 2009 Act are in force now except for prescription, and that because of the Civil Law Bill 2011 in getting an easement for prescription you can use the old law or new law up until 2021, so in reality the old law would apply for a problem Q?

Yeah old law applies essentially. Look at exam report for October. Just keep it straightforward don't get bogged down in that at this stage

kiwi33

Can anybody remember in the Property review lecture she mention a 2008 act that said that when people die under the principle of commorientes the Joint Tenancy is severed and they die as tenant in common which is passed to their heirs? I have it that it passes to their heirs as joint tenants as per Bradshaw and Toulmin but I could have sworn she said somethin about a 2008 act. Does anybody know what this might be.

My head is going in absolute circles at the minute so i could be totally hallucinating

MissLeo

In intestacy - if a person dies and has no spouse - do the children get 100% per capita?

TMJK

kiwi33 wrote: »

Can anybody remember in the Property review lecture she mention a 2008 act that said that when people die under the principle of commorientes the Joint Tenancy is severed and they die as tenant in common which is passed to their heirs? I have it that it passes to their heirs as joint tenants as per Bradshaw and Toulmin but I could have sworn she said somethin about a 2008 act. Does anybody know what this might be.

My head is going in absolute circles at the minute so i could be totally hallucinating

--S 68 Civil Law (Miscellaneous Acts) 2008 - deemed to have died immediately prior to death as tenants in common in equal shares

MissLeo

Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008 - added s 5 (2) to the Succession Act which states they're deemed to have held the property as TIC immediately prior to death

kiwi33

thank you you amazing people!!

I thought I was going mental

missindigo123

Can anyone clarify the effect of Adverse Possession?
I get that it extinguishes the title of the landowner... but the rest I just do not get!!

Easements - how to sever an easement? an action which effectively removes one of the 4 unities / partition / sale (subject to section 30 200 act ) / third party - judgement mortgages / Only one JT left?

Is that right!

safc_pete

missindigo123 wrote: »

Can anyone clarify the effect of Adverse Possession?
I get that it extinguishes the title of the landowner... but the rest I just do not get!!

Easements - how to sever an easement? an action which effectively removes one of the 4 unities / partition / sale (subject to section 30 200 act ) / third party - judgement mortgages / Only one JT left?

Is that right!

The title of the paper owner is extinguished and is vested in the squatter. The estate a squatter holds is a fee simple. However, he does hold subject to any burdens affecting the land, especially as he cannot qualify as equity’s darling.

Dunno about the second part.

missindigo123

safc_pete wrote: »

The title of the paper owner is extinguished and is vested in the squatter. The estate a squatter holds is a fee simple. However, he does hold subject to any burdens affecting the land, especially as he cannot qualify as equity’s darling.

Thank You!!! Getting so scared haha!

Good Luck all

Ownleme

missindigo123 wrote: »

Can anyone clarify the effect of Adverse Possession?
I get that it extinguishes the title of the landowner... but the rest I just do not get!!

Easements - how to sever an easement? an action which effectively removes one of the 4 unities / partition / sale (subject to section 30 200 act ) / third party - judgement mortgages / Only one JT left?

Is that right!

You're not talking about how to sever a jt?

missindigo123

Ownleme wrote: »

You're not talking about how to sever a jt?

Yes I am!! Oh my god, time to get to bed haha!!!

Ownleme

missindigo123 wrote: »

Yes I am!! Oh my god, time to get to bed haha!!!

Sounds like it! On the plus side I'd say you're right so obviously don't need to study anymore!

safc_pete

I know it's really late in the day but with regards to the severance of JTs, is it enough to know the provisions of Part 7 of the LCLRA or would you need to know the old law too?

kiwi33

safc_pete wrote: »

I know it's really late in the day but with regards to the severance of JTs, is it enough to know the provisions of Part 7 of the LCLRA or would you need to know the old law too?

From looking at some of the past exam reports, they always say stick to what is relevant so depending in what context it comes up in the exam I would just refer to part 7. for example if it comes up in a problem question just talk about part seven, it's tight enough for time as it is.

Perhaps if they ask an essay specifically around severance then maybe but feck it, I'm not going to.. put it this way you won't be wrong

Inmyownworld

Anyone know what the issue would be in Constitutional law whereby an investigating member or the Guards issues a search warrant for the premises of the accused?

I know there are certain circumstances where this would be allowed as there is no requirement for the issuer of the warrant to be independent but does anyone know what these circumstances are? I know it was mentioned in the City Colleges review lecture but I can't seem to find where I made a note of it, or if I did at all!

Ownleme

Inmyownworld wrote: »

Anyone know what the issue would be in Constitutional law whereby an investigating member or the Guards issues a search warrant for the premises of the accused?

I know there are certain circumstances where this would be allowed as there is no requirement for the issuer of the warrant to be independent but does anyone know what these circumstances are? I know it was mentioned in the City Colleges review lecture but I can't seem to find where I made a note of it, or if I did at all!

Think it's to do with fair procedures cuz essentially person making decision has the potential to be biased due to his lack of independence?

Inmyownworld

Ownleme wrote: »

Think it's to do with fair procedures cuz essentially person making decision has the potential to be biased due to his lack of independence?

Are there some circumstances where it would be permitted? I really have a feeling that there are but can't remember. I could be wrong though!