property law essay (1 Viewer)

[scarecrow_of_oz]

i've never heard of that either sweetie... i mean i know u can have future interests in property (remainders) but i don't think that applies to the q, and i've never heard it defined as some special term

 

[MaryJane]

Great! Thanks for that girly - I'm glad I havent missed something

 

[MaryJane]

Oh, and const results are out. I got a D - only just! - which is an absolute miracle!! And 11 people failed because they didnt hand it in! You'd think for 30% they'd present something that roughly answers the question.

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

nuts! i thought it was worth 40%?
i got a D too - WOOT go us!!! well done babe! x

 

[MaryJane]

40%? Even better! I need all the marks I can get... I havent done the reading, or listened to the lecture since week 5

 

[iwannarock]

never heard of that future advantage crap.


since when could we get our const essays?.......and from where?

d's well done!

that means i should be good for a P. come on ale you weird flamboyant italian gimme my Pass.

big night 2morow night. my tutor said this property thing is easy to pass but harder to get the d's and hd's............im more concentrated on her "easy to pass" comment. aaaaaaaalright.

 

[MaryJane]

We must have the same property tutor - Sandy? Because she said the exact same thing: "dead easy to pass, but difficult to get a D/HD".

The marks for const are on webct under results.... we should be getting the hardcopy back soon.

Have you put fingers to keyboard yet IWR?

 

[iwannarock]

c'mon.......its me we're talking about.

no fingers to keyboard yet.

infact i still have a good deal of reading to go.

the me of tomorrow can deal with it!:rofl:

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

i'm with u iwr i think it'll have to wait for tomorrow
i'm still transcribing the last of the three lectures though i've done the readings
it's a pretty tricky question
to get ur const marks go to webct and they've added a results section to the homepage

 

[iwannarock]

yeah i have sandy as my tutor.

good tutor. not as much of a ball buster as i had originally thought.

oh and i passed const yay.

the dunce hangs in there again!

const will surely finish me off with this 1500 word problem and 2000word essay over 4 days take home business.

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

nice one iwr!
hate to be the bearer tho, but const is two 2000 word baddies

 

[MaryJane]

Crap! 2000 words?? *sigh*

At least we have each other to get us through it!

And, really, if that essay was worth 40%, we only need to pull another 10% to pass, right?



I cant wait until the end of this year - no more const. I hate it with a passion. Grrr.

And (I'm into starting new sentences on new lines), Sandy is awesome!! I'm going to ask which classes she's taking next semester, and try and slip into one.

 

[iwannarock]

aaaaaah i need help.

i've really done it this time. damn the me of yesterday! it got to have all the fun. screwed the me of today over yet again.

im going through the checklist for torrens title i got from webct.

im having trouble sorting out all these stupid people.

angelina is only one with registered interest. larabank has equitable interest in form of unregistered mortgage which is similar to smith bank. Vince has an equitable interest.

tom n katie havent got it registered yet because of the caveats right stopping that.......so theirs is still an equitable interest despite paying for it and having the CT.

i really dont get how to answer the question. it asks for the legal position of all the parties. can i just put them in order of priority and order of importance? aaaaaaah

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

i'm starting with tom and katie, saying whether i think a)they'll win against angelina (b) whether if they do, they'll prevail over the earlier equitable interests

then i'm looking at larabank, will it be postponed

then vince
then the other bank
then angelina

i know it's not a very logical order but its the only way i can see myself answering the question without repeating myself

don't worry iwr we'll get there we always do

 

[iwannarock]

i was trying to start with angelina but its proving too difficult.

part of the problem involves the fact that i don't know the material well enough to answer the question.

i've just been sitting here with word open for ages.

does fraud come into this at all?........because Brad did the fraud not Angelina. and as far as i know brad wasnt a registered proprietor at all.

so im guessing angelina gets screwed and it just becomes a giant priority dispute between the banks and tom n katie...........of which i dont know how to solve............yet.

 

[MaryJane]

I started with vince v angelina; the mortgagees priority dispute; angelina v tom and katie; tom and katie v mortgagees.

IWR, fraud is not an issue (see last few lines of Gospher in the CM).

And pretty much your conclusion is in line with my one: angelina is screwed, ends up with nothing, tom and katie own the house, and the banks cant touch the house.

With the priority disputes (I dont know whether you guys have done it yet), but did you come to the conclusion of Smithbank, then Larabank and then Vince? I hate priority disputes, especially when there isnt a bloody registered mortgage!! I'm just feeling very lost on that section.

 

[iwannarock]

With the priority disputes (I dont know whether you guys have done it yet), but did you come to the conclusion of Smithbank, then Larabank and then Vince? I hate priority disputes, especially when there isnt a bloody registered mortgage!! I'm just feeling very lost on that section.

so far with the disputes im looking at Vince last. But thats only because im taking the easy way out in that he hasnt lodged a caveat (yes yes i know not lodging one may not make you lose priority dispute etc etc).

yes i agree its damn annoying that vince and none of the banks have anything registered. it would have made it much simpler. what i dont get is how to solve the thing between the two banks.

im reading up on crap now and it says when they're both unregistered mortgages (equitable interests) the key issue is what will ammount to postponing conduct between the two competing equitable mortgages.

im searching for this postponing conduct.........

damn i want the simple days of Diedre and her fashion design problem back. ok maybe not.

 

[MaryJane]

lol, I'm impressed you remembered her name! Ah, those were the days; at least we had a longer page limit!!

Yeah, with all that postponing conduct, I'm just saying that Smithbank is better because they acted "prudently" (quote from some case.. cant think) by notifying Vince and requesting the CoT from larabank. from there, you can also argue that a later interest holder can take priority over an earlier interest holder who caveated if they can prove that they were... like... misled... to acquire their interest (in this case another mortgage)... Does that make sense??

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

wow really? i came to the conclusion that tom and katie would lose out because of indefeasibility. what on earth did u find that suggested they would win?

 

[iwannarock]

lol, I'm impressed you remembered her name! Ah, those were the days; at least we had a longer page limit!!

Yeah, with all that postponing conduct, I'm just saying that Smithbank is better because they acted "prudently" (quote from some case.. cant think) by notifying Vince and requesting the CoT from larabank. from there, you can also argue that a later interest holder can take priority over an earlier interest holder who caveated if they can prove that they were... like... misled... to acquire their interest (in this case another mortgage)... Does that make sense??

yes yes things are beginning to be clear now. i also remember that case with the "prudent thing".

how can tom n katie get the house. they can't register it with the caveats in place?