Hi Molly! I also did the question on Cohabs, however unfortunately I was unable to answer the other parts of it!! I attempted (or should I say Made UP) the rights or residence part if you could tell me what that was about?
As for the Cohab bit, I had prepared for that Qn for Equity and not Land so it was nice to see it on the paper. I looked firstly at the fact that many of the new acts today (FHPA 1976, FLA 1995, Divorce Act 1996) all revolve around the 'constitutional marital family'. Therefore it is necessary for cohabs to fall back on the Equitable principles in order to attain some rights. At this point you could look at direct and indirect contributions and how we differ in Ireland to England, where they have the common intention approach. Then I looked at the LRC Consultation paper on the rights and duties of cohabs which recommended a presumptive scheme and a similar common intention approach be adopted. Into this I brought in elements of Same Sex Cohabiting couples as per Brian Tobins Report on the new Bill and Ray Murphy's Article on Diverse Families'. Finally I looked at the Land and Conveyancing Reform bill which, under S21, discriminates between Married and unmarried cohabs. It proposes that a bona fide purchaser can take free of equity and resulting trusts, thus allowing a cohab sell a house without consulting with his/ her partner. However under S3 of the 1976 act, consent would be required from the non-owning spouse!! Hope this helps! On Oct 15, 9:52 pm, molly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yeah you neednt worry about the 30yrs thing. Most of the question was > about all the other aspects of adverse possession. Sure if you were to > start out by saying that the limitation period was 30years you would > have had nothing to write. Just wondering if any one did the bit part > in q3 about the rights and duties of cohabitants. It was my last > question and had very little time to thik about it. I interpreted it > as being about trusts of the family home which applies to both married > couples and cohabitees ergo the reference to cohabitants. Dont know if > I was correct. My 4th question was on s117 and had a blank on some of > the more recent cases but could remember the facts and and waffled on > a bit about likelihood of Marie succeding in her application. > Hopefully did enough to pass. On Oct 15, 9:11 pm, ShellBelle<[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote:> Don't worry you won't get 0, the > > limitation periods are only one> aspect of the problem. You'll get > marks for the other issues you> discussed - animus possidendi, future > intended use, etc....> > On Oct 15, 6:12 pm, the gaffer<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote:> > > > > OH FU*K! That hardly means I get > > 0 for the AP question ?> > > On Oct 15, 5:39 pm, ShellBelle<[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > > Yeah it was 30 years because > > its owned by a state authority. I did Q8> > > on s117 and tiny bit on > the validity of the condition attached to the> > > gift to Marie as it > was a restriction on alienation.> > > > On Oct 15, 5:25 pm,aviationhead > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > > > I thought the > > succession questions were ok, though I hope by answering> > > > the > majority of Q8 re S117 I was correct!!> > > > > The AP question was > also ok I think. I presume that by transfering to> > > > his son the > time can continue as though there was no change in> > > > squatter. > Also am I correct in thinking that as it was a 'statutory> > > > body' > that purchased the land, the time period for AP will be 30> > > > > years? And therefore there could be no AP?> > > > > On Oct 15,5:12 pm, > ShellBelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > > > > Hey> > > > > > > Ditto what you said about all the help that was given in this > > forum,> > > > > has been great!> > > > > > I thought land was ok apart > from the length of the 2 succession> > > > > questions, ran out of > time on the last one they took much longer than> > > > > my other 3 > questions I did.> > > > > > Was a bit confused in the AP question > about of the effect of the fact> > > > > that the adverse possessor > gave the field to his son. Other than that> > > > > no major problems > apart from the fact that I couldn't cite the numbers> > > > > of the > sections in the SLA but I knew the content of the sections so> > > > > > will hopefully be ok!!> > > > > > On Oct 15, 5:04 pm, aviationhead<[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote:> > > > > > > Hi Guys!> > > > > > Might I > > just begin by thanking you all for your invaluable help over> > > > >> the > past couple of months. It is much appreciated.> > > > > > > So > > How did you all find land today?> > > > > > > I thought it was a > challanging enough paper. But perhaps that was down> > > > > > to the > fact that it was the last exam and burnout wasnt too far away!!- Hide > quoted text -> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -> > >> > - > Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -> > > > - Show quoted text > > -- Hide quoted text -> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -> > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
