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

CoconutHeadMia · 06-11-2020 02:29PM

How did barry die in 2014 but went on holiday in 2016?

FE1Rookie · 06-11-2020 02:32PM

I hope everybody got on well with today's Property exam. Did anyone notice that the years were wrong in the Adverse Possession problem Q? Barry visited the land in 2016, but died in 2014??

An easy paper i thought, but that threw me off as its pretty important to know how long Ann's possession lasted.

I just wrote a sentence at the start of my answer, explaining there's a mistake and I'll do my best to run with the dates provided.

HU123 · 06-11-2020 02:34PM

FE1Rookie wrote: »

I hope everybody got on well with today's Property exam. Did anyone notice that the years were wrong in the Adverse Possession problem Q? Barry visited the land in 2016, but died in 2014??

An easy paper i thought, but that threw me off as its pretty important to know how long Ann's possession lasted.

I just wrote a sentence at the start of my answer, explaining there's a mistake and I'll do my best to run with the dates provided.

I know it really threw me off ! I done another question then but I probably should of have done the same as you and made a note of the mistake.

Jeremiah25 · 06-11-2020 02:35PM

JayFE1 wrote: »

McCrystal, JC, McGee, Damanche, M, Jordan and Maguire have all been up twice. You could argue Crotty and Pringle too as you can’t talk about one without the other. Jordan and McCrystal have came two a piece and there is a link so that would be by far the most common.

I do agree with watching the recent cases and I could add Gilchrist, NVH, C, Shatter, Persona Digital, O’Sullivan, etc however I was told before I started studying to focus on the recent cases but with the exception of March ‘20 where recent cases made up 3/4 there is a pattern there of 1 recent case accompanied by three older cases. The statistics over a 5 year (10 sittings) and 7 year (14 sittings) back this up too. When I was doing my statistics on this, I set a recent case as 5 years before date of exam so McCrystal was “recent” in 2015 but not now and so on.

For RickMatt, LawLaw, yourself, myself and anyone else planning or thinking of doing the case note it’s important to take account of recent decisions but older cases will be our bread and butter!

Yeah good shout. Not banking on doing the q personally but if 2 nice cases come up it'd be a nice q to have in the bag.

FE1Rookie · 06-11-2020 02:36PM

HU123 wrote: »

I know it really threw me off ! I done another question then but I probably should of have done the same as you and made a note of the mistake.

It was my 4th question and I'm sure whoever may look at my video will get a laugh out of my perplexed face and me laughing with my hands on my face at how stupid that mistake was.

The system was actually perfect and I felt sitting the exams in the comfort of your own home was far better than travelling all the way to Dublin, paying for a hotel, having a terrible nights sleep in a bad hotel bed, and sitting around a few hundred people coughing and spluttering everywhere. I was concerned after hearing all those horror stories but my exam went off without a hitch.

Healyjhow · 06-11-2020 02:43PM

I hope so!

IgoPAP wrote: »

Easement by necessity?

shaunadennyham · 06-11-2020 02:44PM

CoconutHeadMia wrote: »

How did barry die in 2014 but went on holiday in 2016?

I put at the start of my answer that I will assume that he died in 2017 for the purposes of the advices

nmurphy1441 · 06-11-2020 02:48PM

CoconutHeadMia wrote: »

How did barry die in 2014 but went on holiday in 2016?

Really threw me off as I left it until last!! Don’t know how it’s going to be marked!!!

FE1Rookie · 06-11-2020 02:50PM

Aside from the year error, did people say that Ann did in fact adversely possess the land or not? I said she didn't because she didn't have sufficient animus possidendi due to the fact that her use wasn't contrary to Barry's future intended use and she knew of it.

shaunadennyham · 06-11-2020 02:53PM

FE1Rookie wrote: »

Aside from the year error, did people say that Ann did in fact adversely possess the land or not? I said she didn't because she didn't have sufficient animus possidendi due to the fact that her use wasn't contrary to Barry's future intended use and she knew of it.

Agreed I noted the potential interim use as per Durak

SalteeBiscuits · 06-11-2020 02:54PM

FE1Rookie wrote: »

Aside from the year error, did people say that Ann did in fact adversely possess the land or not? I said she didn't because she didn't have sufficient animus possidendi due to the fact that her use wasn't contrary to Barry's future intended use and she knew of it.

Might be wrong but isn't future use irrelevant as per Durack Manufacturing v Considine?

law987 · 06-11-2020 02:56PM

Does everyone else's exam say "last activity 3 days ago" when you check for feedback?

SalteeBiscuits · 06-11-2020 02:56PM

law987 wrote: »

Does everyone else's exam say "last activity 3 days ago" when you check for feedback?

Yeah I don't know what would be, maybe last time the Law Society checked it?

FE1Rookie · 06-11-2020 02:58PM

shaunadennyham wrote: »

Agreed I noted the potential interim use as per Durak

Yes I did the same and mentioned that he offered her a short term lease which implies it was clearly just possession in the interim.

FE1new · 06-11-2020 02:58PM

FE1Rookie wrote: »

Aside from the year error, did people say that Ann did in fact adversely possess the land or not? I said she didn't because she didn't have sufficient animus possidendi due to the fact that her use wasn't contrary to Barry's future intended use and she knew of it.

Yes that's what I said, she had the correct time and with Pinemeadow it would have have been sufficient however as she had not filed anything before Barry offered a lease which she acknowledged and told her of future plans and looked over the hedge to stop the clock there could be no Adverse Possession. Sheila cannot rely on the time as a successive squatter either as there was a break. She can however start the clock again as the future plans are gone.

FE1Rookie · 06-11-2020 02:59PM

SalteeBiscuits wrote: »

Might be wrong but isn't future use irrelevant as per Durack Manufacturing v Considine?

The judge conceded in that case that the owners intentions would be relevant if the squatter knew of them, and was merely occupying the land in the interim.

bobbyness · 06-11-2020 03:01PM

SalteeBiscuits wrote: »

Might be wrong but isn't future use irrelevant as per Durack Manufacturing v Considine?

You're both right I think. The Law Reform Commission has recommended changing adverse possession to by 1) possession inconsistent with the title of the true owner instead of 2) Inconsistent with the true owners future intentions.

In Ireland there has been an inconsistent approach and in need of reform or clarification from a higher court.

That's what my take on it was - Although I didn't do it as a question

RaffRiff01 · 06-11-2020 03:03PM

Did anyone do the Contractual Licence Essay? I only learned it last night and it was the only licence I learned and got lucky! I learned it from the manual off by heart as it has only 3 sections.. do you guys think this is enough?

Iso_123 · 06-11-2020 03:06PM

Did anyone else say that barry saying she could continue to use the land and entering into negotiations for the lease could be an issue re permission? ie that the possession may not be adverse if this is found to be permission

I just said then that she would have to invite the court to follow ja pye and durack and find that the squatters intention to possess the land in a manner inconsistent with the true owners title is what is relevant and not the land owners future intended use?

does this sound right to anyone.. Also I am such an idiot i didn't even notice barry died before he visited the land I just answered it as if he had visited in 2016 and died after

jip000 · 06-11-2020 03:08PM

Hi there, does anyone have examiners reports and/or sample answers for contract? Lent mine to a friend whose dog thought they were a great toy... but you cant stay mad at a pupper

Any help would be appreciated. I have notes to trade!

Iso_123 · 06-11-2020 03:10PM

I also had an absolute disaster with the system.. I right clicked a word that was underlined red that I spelled wrong and went to fix it and i must have clicked something wrong but it kicked me out of the exam and uninstalled the proctorio soft ware:( I had to reinstal and do the exam checks again and then it let me back in

bluerthanu · 06-11-2020 03:10PM

FE1new wrote: »

Yes that's what I said, she had the correct time and with Pinemeadow it would have have been sufficient however as she had not filed anything before Barry offered a lease which she acknowledged and told her of future plans and looked over the hedge to stop the clock there could be no Adverse Possession. Sheila cannot rely on the time as a successive squatter either as there was a break. She can however start the clock again as the future plans are gone.

If there was adverse possession by Ann, I'm pretty sure Sheila could be a successive squatter given she resided with Ann? I just said it depended on whether she lived with her before her death

nmurphy1441 · 06-11-2020 03:10PM

FE1Rookie wrote: »

Aside from the year error, did people say that Ann did in fact adversely possess the land or not? I said she didn't because she didn't have sufficient animus possidendi due to the fact that her use wasn't contrary to Barry's future intended use and she knew of it.

I said he died in 2014 so could not have came on a holiday in 2016 so Ann was offered no lease and she did not know of any future intended use! Said Sheila was entitled to the land as Ann had claimed adverse possession!!! Anyone else say this?

shaunadennyham · 06-11-2020 03:12PM

SalteeBiscuits wrote: »

Might be wrong but isn't future use irrelevant as per Durack Manufacturing v Considine?

Ah Jesus thanks for the heart attack haha no the future use isn’t the primary focus but if the squatter was only using it in the interim in knowledge of future use it may defeat their claim.

Also did anyone else refer to Dermot being incapacitated and thus the clock won’t run when it passed to him

jip000 · 06-11-2020 03:14PM

shaunadennyham wrote: »

Also did anyone else refer to Dermot being incapacitated and thus the clock won’t run when it passed to him

Dang. Knew i forgot something there at the end!

michaelot97 · 06-11-2020 03:16PM

I rang the law society during the exam and they told me it was meant to read that Barry died in 2019.

shaunadennyham · 06-11-2020 03:20PM

michaelot97 wrote: »

I rang the law society during the exam and they told me it was meant to read that Barry died in 2019.

You’d think they could have sent a message to everyone via the chat function alerting them to same

Aoibhin511 · 06-11-2020 03:24PM

Was all of that not kinda irrelevant though because 2004 to 2016 is 12 years, so he didn't show up on time and she had already successfully adversely possessed it by the time the lease was mentioned/permission was given. And is Barry was still the owner in 2019 then Dermot doesn't matter.
I still went through the motions of addressing the issue but it felt pointless

Coopie · 06-11-2020 03:26PM

Predictions for Constitutional anyone?!! Please help!

Iso_123 · 06-11-2020 03:28PM

after seeing all the stuff from that stupid barry question I can safely say that I wish I did a different question

I can't believe I didn't notice he died before he visited the field hahahah (laughing on the outside and crying on the inside)

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

Comments