[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”adssa” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]
it is up to you how many words you devote to each part of the question, but you should be advised that we expect that a good answer will normally consist of two parts of roughly equal length. Support your conclusions by referring to legislation (where appropriate) and case-law. Include a bibliography listing the works to which you have referred. You should use footnote references for case citations, references to statutes, and bibliographic references, but you should not include any other text in your footnotes. Note: You will lose marks (up to a maximum of 10%) if your answer is more than 3000 words long. ANSWER BOTH PART A AND PART B Part A: In January 2014, Detective Sarah Linden and her partner Detective Steven Holder were investigating the murder of a young woman: it was a high profile case with lots of suspects. The woman’s body had been found in a car belonging to Mayor Richmond. Not surprisingly, one of the suspects was Mayor Richmond himself. Against Holder’s advice, Sarah began a relationship with Richmond and, within a month, they were married. Sarah and Sarah’s fourteen-year old son Jack, who was determined to become a barrister, moved out of Sarah’s house and into Richmond’s house. As the investigation progressed, Sarah and Holder became worried for their safety with the murderer still at large. They met with a solicitor and each wrote a will: • Sarah left all of her property to the Retired Police Dogs Fund • Holder left £30,000 to Reddick (a policeman) and the rest of his property to the Vegan Society. As the investigation neared its conclusion, the murderer shot Sarah and Holder when they left the police station. Sarah was killed outright; Holder was mortally wounded. There was complete chaos. As he lay dying, surrounded by colleagues and medics, Holder whispered to Reddick: “the money I’ve left you in my will, it’s to pay Jack’s university fees.” Soon after, Holder died. It later transpired that Holder had been living with his girlfriend Caroline for four years, and Sarah had entered into an agreement with her first husband (Carl) that when either of them died the property of the deceased would pass directly to their son Jack; they’d made wills to that effect in 2011. Advise Jack, Reddick and Caroline. AND Part B: In 2002, Andreas and Brigitte (who were unmarried) bought 13 Acacia Avenue (Acacia Avenue), paying £200,000 of which Andreas paid £50,000 and Brigitte £150,000. In the Land Registry form TR1, a cross was put in the first box in section 10. In 2009, Brigitte met Carlos who, after they had started an affair, suggested to Brigitte that he buy a house for them to live in, and she agreed. In 2010, Carlos bought 23 Broom Road (Broom Road) for which he paid £200,000, paying £100,000 cash and borrowing the balance from the Jaywick Building Society. Brigitte left Andreas and moved into Broom Road with Carlos. Andreas served a notice on Brigitte under s 36(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925. At Broom Road, Carlos paid the mortgage instalments and the household bills but he gave Brigitte, who did not work, a generous allowance for housekeeping and for her own use. Brigitte spent her spare time painting and decorating the house at Broom Road; a keen gardener, she also re-landscaped part of the large back garden. In November 2013, Carlos told Brigitte he was bored with their relationship and wanted her to leave. Broom Road is now worth £300,000. Brigitte left Broom Road in January 2014 and now lives with her mother. Brigitte wants Acacia Avenue (now worth £360,000) sold, but Andreas wants to stay in Acacia Avenue. Brigitte also wants to claim a half share in Broom Road. To take his mind off his problems, Andreas started to play golf. During his first game, he drove a ball into the rough where he noticed a Breguet watch. Andreas put on the watch. Brigitte recently visited her mother, Davina, to talk about her situation. On her way home from visiting her mother, Brigitte walked across a newly-ploughed field where she found a small pot containing a few coins, one of which had a silvery appearance and bore on one side the inscription, ‘CAESAR.AUG.IMP.NERO’. She took the pot and its contents home. What are the entitlements, rights and responsibilities of Andreas and Brigitte in the situations described?
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”best” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]