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

jewels652

channing90 wrote: »

I am convinced both are right. Anyone else who answered it ?

I only wrote about fiduciary duties to shareholders, creditors and employees but I am freaking out that maybe I should have put down the others

jewels652

jewels652 wrote: »

I only wrote about fiduciary duties to shareholders, creditors and employees but I am freaking out that maybe I should have put down the others

That meant to be a sad face not a happy one. Cause am not a happy cookie

SwD

For those that answered question 1, what do we believe was the appropriate answer?

It was a very narrow questions. Should the focus have been on disregarding SLP for relationships of Agency and compare that where corporate groups are treated as an SEE?

LawGirl3434

jewels652 wrote: »

jewels652 wrote: »

I only wrote about fiduciary duties to shareholders, creditors and employees but I am freaking out that maybe I should have put down the others

That meant to be a sad face not a happy one. Cause am not a happy cookie

No I think you’re right to be honest and seems the majority coming out took the same approach, myself included

LawGirl3434

SwD wrote: »

For those that answered question 1, what do we believe was the appropriate answer?

It was a very narrow questions. Should the focus have been on disregarding SLP for relationships of Agency and compare that where corporate groups are treated as an SEE?

Yeah, exact same question has come up before - checked his report he wanted agency and SEE

SwD

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

Yeah, exact same question has come up before - checked his report he wanted agency and SEE

*breathes sigh of relief*

Thank you.

iamanengine

Final Property Topics

Succession
Finding
AP
Registration
Co-Ownership
Mortgages
Easements

Half learning RTA 2004 for Landlord Tenant so I could spoof it if needs be.

Leaving out Family Property, came up last two sittings so might not come up.

Hope that covers me

jewels652

SwD wrote: »

*breathes sigh of relief*

Thank you.

What paper came up before?

SwD

jewels652 wrote: »

What paper came up before?

March 2016, Question 1.

LawGirl3434

What are people predicting for tomorrow?

Have:

FHPA
AP
Successions
Land registry
2004 act
Easements
Lease/ license
Leasehold covenants
Co ownership
Finding objects
Mortgages
Land registry

Feels like a v small course, I know same things can’t come up again and again but equally she has to ask some of the bankers?

rightytighty

How important are pre-LCRA Prescription methods in easements?

Hamerzan Sickles

LawGirl3434 wrote: »

What are people predicting for tomorrow?

Have:

FHPA
AP
Successions
Land registry
2004 act
Easements
Lease/ license
Leasehold covenants
Co ownership
Finding objects
Mortgages
Land registry

Feels like a v small course, I know same things can’t come up again and again but equally she has to ask some of the bankers?

That's pretty much the entire course sans mortgages... I think you'll be okay.

holliek

Can anyone tell me when the lease vs licence question has come up? Not filled in on my grid

supercreative

Does anyone know what the story is with bullet point answers? She says in the Autumn 2018 Property examiner's report that it's not ideal to do it for all five, but is it acceptable to do it for one or two?

legaltraineex

Would any kind soul send me on property examiners' reports?

sbbyrne

Property

Hey!
Has anyone had a look at March 2017 Question 7 - on creating a Valid will.
If so could they message me. I have the sample answer, but im not sure if it's correct and would like to bounce it off someone!

Particularly this part "When Mary called to the house with the will, Julia signed the will in the presence of Mary and Dylan. Jeff was walking into the room next door when Julia was initialling the will. "I think you are supposed to watch me doing this love!" Julia called out to him. "l can see you signing it darling" he replied as he had his back turned."

I'd be so grateful!

rightytighty

sbbyrne wrote: »

Property

Hey!
Has anyone had a look at March 2017 Question 7 - on creating a Valid will.
If so could they message me. I have the sample answer, but im not sure if it's correct and would like to bounce it off someone!

Particularly this part "When Mary called to the house with the will, Julia signed the will in the presence of Mary and Dylan. Jeff was walking into the room next door when Julia was initialling the will. "I think you are supposed to watch me doing this love!" Julia called out to him. "l can see you signing it darling" he replied as he had his back turned."

I'd be so grateful!

I have Kavanagh v Fagan as authority that witnesses need not actually see the signature or know that it’s a will being signed once the witness the ACT of signing. However if the will is signed by another on the Testators’s behalf and at his direction then witnesses must at least have the opportunity to see the signature.

iamanengine

sbbyrne wrote: »

Property

Hey!
Has anyone had a look at March 2017 Question 7 - on creating a Valid will.
If so could they message me. I have the sample answer, but im not sure if it's correct and would like to bounce it off someone!

Particularly this part "When Mary called to the house with the will, Julia signed the will in the presence of Mary and Dylan. Jeff was walking into the room next door when Julia was initialling the will. "I think you are supposed to watch me doing this love!" Julia called out to him. "l can see you signing it darling" he replied as he had his back turned."

I'd be so grateful!

In my notes I have:

Kavanagh v Fegan - Both witnesses must be present at the same time when the testator is signing and either see the act of signing or if the testator acknowledges the signature they have the opportunity to see the signature, even if they do not avail of it.

Sires v Galscock - If signing takes place within the line of sight it is good attestation. Need not be in the same room.

So I guess you could argue he had an opportunity to see the signature but did not avail?

sbbyrne

rightytighty wrote: »

I have Kavanagh v Fagan as authority that witnesses need not actually see the signature or know that it’s a will being signed once the witness the ACT of signing. However if the will is signed by another on the Testators’s behalf and at his direction then witnesses must at least have the opportunity to see the signature.

Thanks for the reply!
in the sample answer i'm looking at, the woman is leaving her entire estate to her husband, and it's him that turns his back on her while she's signing it, so would it not be invalid anyway because he is a beneficiary under the will? Like he shouldnt be witnessing it anyway under S82?

Am i gone all over the place?!

I'm probably over complicating it - it's wrecking my head though!

rightytighty

sbbyrne wrote: »

Thanks for the reply!
in the sample answer i'm looking at, the woman is leaving her entire estate to her husband, and it's him that turns his back on her while she's signing it, so would it not be invalid anyway because he is a beneficiary under the will? Like he shouldnt be witnessing it anyway under S82?

Am i gone all over the place?!

I'm probably over complicating it - it's wrecking my head though!

No I would say that’s probably correct. Would he still have to elect to take his LRS in that scenario or would it apply automatically because the gift fails as opposed to being of no value?

iamanengine

sbbyrne wrote: »

Thanks for the reply!
in the sample answer i'm looking at, the woman is leaving her entire estate to her husband, and it's him that turns his back on her while she's signing it, so would it not be invalid anyway because he is a beneficiary under the will? Like he shouldnt be witnessing it anyway under S82?

Am i gone all over the place?!

I'm probably over complicating it - it's wrecking my head though!

Yep gifts to witnesses are unvalid under S.82. He could still claim LRS.

Actually, if a gift fails it goes into the residuary of the estate which follows the rules on intestacy and the husband would get everything that way, unless there was issue and he would get 2/3...I think?!

sbbyrne

Ah yes, ok. See that's what i was thinking, but the sample answer doesnt mention anything about him being a beneficiary and a witness, just says he didnt witness it properly because he turned his back and that's why the will was invalid - because it wasnt attested properly - so i just got totally confused.

Thanks for your answers you've helped. Lets just say the sample answer is a bit off!

SwD

supercreative wrote: »

Does anyone know what the story is with bullet point answers? She says in the Autumn 2018 Property examiner's report that it's not ideal to do it for all five, but is it acceptable to do it for one or two?

She accepts that by question 5 a lot of candidates may have exceeded the 35 minute mark per question.

Accordingly, where candidates are on their final question they can use bullet points to convey knowledge on the topic. It need not take the typical Intro/Conclusion essay style or ILAC problem style.

supercreative

SwD wrote: »

She accepts that by question 5 a lot of candidates may have exceeded the 35 minute mark per question.

Accordingly, where candidates are on their final question they can use bullet points to convey knowledge on the topic. It need not take the typical Intro/Conclusion essay style or ILAC problem style.

Oh that's great, thank you! Do you know if that's a general thing across the exams or just property?

JohnsKite

For the possible note on estoppel licences, what are they asking? like should i go into promissory/prop estop?

Fe1erere

Constitution Query:

Hey guys, hope study is going well for you all. Does anyone have an up to date exam grid for Constitutional? Thanks

holliek

Can anyone explain Re Urquhart to me? So far I understand that the husband died a day after the wife and didn't exercise his right to election.

Does that mean he's entitle to half of her estate by virtue of his LRS?

lisac223

Constitutional

Hi All,

I'm thinking of cutting Religion and Referenda/elections - is there anything else people feel very unlikely to come up on Friday? Or would anyone mind sharing what they are covering?

It's such a massive course I want to be sure I'm not leaving out anything glaringly obvious!

Thank you!

Freckley201

lisac223 wrote: »

Constitutional

Hi All,

I'm thinking of cutting Religion and Referenda/elections - is there anything else people feel very unlikely to come up on Friday? Or would anyone mind sharing what they are covering?

It's such a massive course I want to be sure I'm not leaving out anything glaringly obvious!

Thank you!

I'm cutting Right to Liberty, only because it doesn't seem to come up much and I've run out of time

rightytighty

holliek wrote: »

Can anyone explain Re Urquhart to me? So far I understand that the husband died a day after the wife and didn't exercise his right to election.

Does that mean he's entitle to half of her estate by virtue of his LRS?

I think Re Urquhart is that where the spouse is left a gift in the will they MUST elect to take the LRS if they so wish, if they fail to they will receive the gift, regardless of its value.