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

lawless11

user115 wrote: »

Did anyone spot aisling parks name on exam not Neil Maddox wonder if it was mistake or if it was her paper? So strange

Yeah, and the style of the exam looks like the old one (same co-ownership Q for example). Maybe the other one just did one season?

Good paper for me otherwise. Probably the only "easy" one. Now onto EU AND equity.

MagicThree18

Happy enough with that. Not perfect by any means, but I think I done my best considering I completely blanked on my way to Dublin this morning. I got 48% last year with what felt like a weaker paper. Based on the new examiner's pass rate and marking scheme, as laid out in his March 2018 report, I might have gotten over the line.

In terms of the succession problem question, I nearly missed the possible intestacy element, but just spotted it in the nick of time. Still not sure if I addressed it correctly but I came very close to skipping it entirely.

The low-point was the Rowe v Law case for extrinsic evidence. I blanked on the name and ended up calling it the 'Wade' case, presumably pulling Roe v Wade out of the depths of my psyche. Turning a succession question into an abortion debate isn't a good look. I think I might have rescued myself by referring to the two-part test and the Chief Justice's dissenting opinion, so hopefully he'll give me some credit for actually knowing the case itself.

user115

lawless11 wrote: »

Yeah, and the style of the exam looks like the old one (same co-ownership Q for example). Maybe the other one just did one season?

Good paper for me otherwise. Probably the only "easy" one. Now onto EU AND equity.

Ya the exact same as Oct 2015. Was question 8 mix of family home and mortgages ya?

Was there an implied license in ap question? I found it grand but those parts little weird

lawless11

MagicThree18 wrote: »

In terms of the succession problem question, I nearly missed the possible intestacy element, but just spotted it in the nick of time. Still not sure if I addressed it correctly but I came very close to skipping it entirely.

The possible intestacy element? What was that? :X

lawless11

user115 wrote: »

Ya the exact same as Oct 2015. Was question 8 mix of family home and mortgages ya?

Was there an implied license in ap question? I found it grand but those parts little weird

For the last one kind of went full on family home.
And for the implied licence I considered it.

Natalie_06

lawless11 wrote: »

The possible intestacy element? What was that? :X

Did you say the will was valid? I said the will was likely to be invalid so then she died intestate, and the rules of intestacy apply.

FE1 Lady

lawless11 wrote: »

user115 wrote: »

Did anyone spot aisling parks name on exam not Neil Maddox wonder if it was mistake or if it was her paper? So strange

Yeah, and the style of the exam looks like the old one (same co-ownership Q for example). Maybe the other one just did one season?

Good paper for me otherwise. Probably the only "easy" one. Now onto EU AND equity.

Lawless I am coinciding with you - Eu and equity next!! Roll on Thursday

lawless11

Natalie_06 wrote: »

Did you say the will was valid? I said the will was likely to be invalid so then she died intestate, and the rules of intestacy apply.

I said it was possibly valid, after all she still had her head and the formal requirements were complied with. Then I went on questioning how to 'disprove' what looked like a revocation by destruction.

Vegetarian2017

Yeah i mentioned implied licence for Ap.

Was happy out with the paper writing away four questions memory flowing all good and then BAM when i say i fxxked up the fifth so bad the actually succession on question on validity of will of all the topics. I completely crashed. I left just over 20 mins to answer it and brain just froze read it wrong had to scribble a part out absolutely freaked. Was really happy with my other answers but examiner will look now and think Ive no idea what i was failing a succession question id say that got me a fail.  assuming the rarely give over 12 to 13 marks for other questions unless extremely high standard.
Read second part as Julie being the daughter and referred to cohab act....christ she was the niece. Ended up scribbling parts then blanked because i was under time pressure could not for life of me turn it around. If i failed all three over that one question i really will cry so hard. ;(

MagicThree18

Natalie_06 wrote: »

Did you say the will was valid? I said the will was likely to be invalid so then she died intestate, and the rules of intestacy apply.

Yeah, me too. The question just said that Olive 'filled in' the will, not that she signed it or that Tom and Jerry witnessed it. In fact it didn't even say that they signed it either, just that she asked them to. The will didn't appear to be executed.

jewels652

lawless11 wrote: »

I said it was possibly valid, after all she still had her head and the formal requirements were complied with. Then I went on questioning how to 'disprove' what looked like a revocation by destruction.

I said that it was valid as well but I did not discuss revocation as I think I may be wrong but revocation needs to be intentional.

Natalie_06

lawless11 wrote: »

I said it was possibly valid, after all she still had her head and the formal requirements were complied with. Then I went on questioning how to 'disprove' what looked like a revocation by destruction.

I said that she didn't sign the will herself, so it was invalid. And that Tom and Jerry signed the will.... but this wasn't attestation because there was no signature to attest. But maybe that was just me reading into the facts of the question too much

jewels652

It was a good paper I was happy with the easements questions.
But I didn’t mention licences in the adverse possession question so I don’t know.

MagicThree18

I didn't cover licenses so I wouldn't know it f I saw it. What aspect was that?

Vegetarian2017

If a licence is found to be implied it negates AP that's if so wouldn't worry if you didn't state it plenty of more aspects through the question to be marked on.

lawless11

Natalie_06 wrote: »

I said that she didn't sign the will herself, so it was invalid. And that Tom and Jerry signed the will.... but this wasn't attestation because there was no signature to attest. But maybe that was just me reading into the facts of the question too much

Ah damn I misread, thought she signed it too. Ah well. Whoops.

jewels652

So I did the following:
1. Easements (essay)
2. Adverse possession (pq)
3. Extrinsic evidence (essay)
6. Sucesión (pq)
8. Family (pq)

I did not identify the licence issue on the adverse possession question and I did not address mortgages in the family question.

jus_me

Natalie_06 wrote: »

I said that she didn't sign the will herself, so it was invalid. And that Tom and Jerry signed the will.... but this wasn't attestation because there was no signature to attest. But maybe that was just me reading into the facts of the question too much

Yeah she didn’t sign it that was the obvious outcome they wanted us to spot with intestacy I’m sure

jewels652

lawless11 wrote: »

Ah damn I misread, thought she signed it too. Ah well. Whoops.

I thought she signed it too.

kasey0123

Really unsure about property examination. Do you get marks for general content and reasoning or really are conclusive answers what they are looking for in property..

I gave two different outcomes for the succession Q, the ap q and the family property question. Just because I was confused more so

lawless11

jewels652 wrote: »

I thought she signed it too.

Ah schutter . Do you think it ruins everything in my answer then? Cause I obviously proceeded in supposing it was valid x.x

There was too many names dammit...

lawless11

jus_me wrote: »

Yeah she didn’t sign it that was the obvious outcome they wanted us to spot with intestacy I’m sure

Ah well I missed the "obvious" then....

jewels652

kasey0123 wrote: »

Really unsure about property examination. Do you get marks for general content and reasoning or really are conclusive answers what they are looking for in property..

I gave two different outcomes for the succession Q, the ap q and the family property question. Just because I was confused more so

I would like to know the answer to this question too.

LawStudent2018

lawless11 wrote: »

Ah schutter . Do you think it ruins everything in my answer then? Cause I obviously proceeded in supposing it was valid x.x

There was too many names dammit...

Didn't say anywhere that she didn't sign it. You could make the presumption that she did.

jewels652

This is my first time sitting the Fe1s I only sat 3 and for the 3 I sat I was able to answer 5qs however, after The exams I then realised that I missed one or two issues. How many marks will they take off if you missed a few issues ?

fehun123

Hey everyone, I just realised I only skimmed over preliminary ref procedure and infringement and now I'm a little worried, do you think I need to know these in great detail for tomorrow?

kasey0123

jewels652 wrote: »

I would like to know the answer to this question too.

Yeah i said for the AP q that he had permission , but I never mentioned the word license for some wild reason. But I said he went outside the scope of his permission so time started to run. But when he handed over the keys he acknowledged Fran by saying she hadn’t been around in years so this could have negated animus pos.. but then I said jack may have good ownership if Charles had registered his possession after the time period was up in the PRAI ( completely threw this in her Because I wasn’t sure had he or hadn’t he acquired ap) so I kind of left it open to 2 scenarios..

For succession, I said if she had signed it, if it was witnesses properly and it wasn’t destroyed it would be rules of testacy.. if she didn’t sign it, wasn’t witnessed it would be intestacy. But I didn’t say anything conclusive because again was guessing....

For family property I didn’t mention mortgages at all. Didn’t think you had to because it was moreso about the FHPA? And consent. All I mentioned was /.3,s.4, s,5 briefly. And mentioned s.7 but couldn’t remember what it actually said. I ended up saying that the bank were in constructive notice and even tho he had signed a declaration they didn’t take reasonable steps and should have asked for a death certificate.

But then randomly mentioned well if the courts allow the bank to rely on the declaration ( could barely remember reading this) that she would be granted a stay...... but sure she didn’t even live there anyway haha. I just didn’t know what way to go with it so said it would be unlikely the courts would allow repossession of the family home because of the consent ordeal and somers case.

I’m relation to easements, ran out of time, had to throw down a few acquisition methods in a few lines. I’m sure I’ll lose half marks for this already, assuming the question is 10+ 10 marks. I found that question to be too much for one Q. There’s 8 requirements / characteristics for easements. Including case law and a good stab at it that is a question alone. Never mind the acquisition side of it. That annoyed me .....

No idea what the standard is for a pass, the longer I do these exams the more annoyed I’m becoming in relation to this system. There is 0 guidance.

lawless11

LawStudent2018 wrote: »

Didn't say anywhere that she didn't sign it. You could make the presumption that she did.

Thank you. This is technically true. You just lowered my stress by 50%. Da real mvp.

Tony_TwoLegs

How is it possible to spend all this time studying EU .... to realise none of it has stuck. It's as if my brain refuses to learn it.
Sure I may as well go in and get my €105 worth of frustration nonetheless.
May as well head for a few pints for the evening as I may as well be hung for a sheep than hung for a lamb.

kasey0123

lawless11 wrote: »

Thank you. This is technically true. You just lowered my stress by 50%. Da real mvp.

Yeah to be honest even when in the exam and I realised the fact there was two routes maybe I reflected and did think how stupidly annoying that is, I totally get it it’s to examine us etc but like in 3 hours with 5 Qs I think they should make things just a TINY bit clearer when it comes to that stuff, not obvious but just a teeny bit clearer. Like we can all presume and infer for pages and pages and pages on end yeno, we’d run out of time. They need atleast to limit how much a q can be presumed upon I think, it’s hard to know what areas they exactly want you to talk about (((;;;