1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7235
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby beach_terror » Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:53 pm

rad law wrote:
nooyyllib wrote:
beach_terror wrote:Also, on a completely unrelated note, I need a girlfriend.


.


youjizz.com bros

DON'T HAVE INTERNET IN MY APARTMENT, LOLS

....

:cry:

User avatar
mbusch22
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby mbusch22 » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:20 pm

swc65 wrote:
beach_terror wrote:Property question: Are actual partial and constructive evictions part of the covenant of quiet enjoyment?


Yes.

My gut says yes, but I just want to be sure. They just seem like different severities in the breach of the covenant (actual the most flagrant, constructive next, then just a breach of the covenant which seems to be the least worst kinda sorta)



I feel the same, but it all ends in the same result.


Does partial require the tenant to vacate?

And if you're using the English rule on delivery of actual possession, would the tenant's cause of action be based on cov. of quiet enjoyment if there is a trespasser/holdover? In other words is delivery of actual possession even concerned with the covenant?

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby Grizz » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:25 pm

beach_terror wrote:
rad law wrote:
nooyyllib wrote:
beach_terror wrote:Also, on a completely unrelated note, I need a girlfriend.


.


youjizz.com bros

DON'T HAVE INTERNET IN MY APARTMENT, LOLS

....

:cry:


You are truly in hell.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7235
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby beach_terror » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:28 pm

mbusch22 wrote:
swc65 wrote:
beach_terror wrote:Property question: Are actual partial and constructive evictions part of the covenant of quiet enjoyment?


Yes.

My gut says yes, but I just want to be sure. They just seem like different severities in the breach of the covenant (actual the most flagrant, constructive next, then just a breach of the covenant which seems to be the least worst kinda sorta)



I feel the same, but it all ends in the same result.


Does partial require the tenant to vacate?

And if you're using the English rule on delivery of actual possession, would the tenant's cause of action be based on cov. of quiet enjoyment if there is a trespasser/holdover? In other words is delivery of actual possession even concerned with the covenant?

Partial can lead the tenant receiving total rent abatement. I'm assuming this would also lead to lease rescission as it seems inequitable to allow them to continue their occupation without paying rent.

Delivery of possession is apart of the covenant as far as I can tell as well. It doesn't just apply after the T is in actual possession. This makes logical sense too because the covenant is designed to protect their use and enjoyment, and if there are issues with taking actual possession then it seems to squarely fall under the covenant's purpose.

stayway
Posts: 1275
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:38 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby stayway » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:31 pm

beach_terror wrote:
rad law wrote:
nooyyllib wrote:
beach_terror wrote:Also, on a completely unrelated note, I need a girlfriend.


.


youjizz.com bros

DON'T HAVE INTERNET IN MY APARTMENT, LOLS

....

:cry:


Your BB has internet

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby swc65 » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:34 pm

mbusch22 wrote:
swc65 wrote:
beach_terror wrote:Property question: Are actual partial and constructive evictions part of the covenant of quiet enjoyment?


Yes.

My gut says yes, but I just want to be sure. They just seem like different severities in the breach of the covenant (actual the most flagrant, constructive next, then just a breach of the covenant which seems to be the least worst kinda sorta)



I feel the same, but it all ends in the same result.


Does partial require the tenant to vacate?

And if you're using the English rule on delivery of actual possession, would the tenant's cause of action be based on cov. of quiet enjoyment if there is a trespasser/holdover? In other words is delivery of actual possession even concerned with the covenant?



Huh? Delivering actual possession is a covenant. The covenant of quiet enjoyment comes in after possession is delivered- just the promise to allow the tenant to keep on possessing, without interference from the LL.

The case we read for partial did not require the tenant to vacate (though I am sure there are cases that do require this). The LL built a brick wall on part of the land (only like two feet or something stupid) and that was a breach of the covenant which destroyed the lease.

I dunno what you mean by holdover. The tenant is the one that usually holds over at the end of the lease. So the LL could bring a trespass action against a holdover tenant. IF you mean the actual possession of an apartment is not delivered because the previous tenant has held over, then that is an interesting question. I would think that the LL would be in breach of his promise to deliver possession to the new tenant and have to evict the previous tenant in order to effectuate delivery. It would be weird to require the new tenant to evict the old one before the new tenant even has possession because the new tenant's interest would not have come to fruition without actual possession in the first place, so it's unclear that the new tenant would even have the right to exclude anyone before taking possession.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby keg411 » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:24 pm

We didn't do partial constructive eviction, but thanks to this thread, I just looked this up and fixed my outline on regular constructive eviction (didn't have the part in where the T has to vacate and a couple other points).

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby swc65 » Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:57 pm

keg411 wrote:We didn't do partial constructive eviction, but thanks to this thread, I just looked this up and fixed my outline on regular constructive eviction (didn't have the part in where the T has to vacate and a couple other points).



What do you mean T has to vacate? Of course he will have to leave once the lease is destroyed, but he does NOT necessarily have to leave in order to establish a constructive or partial conviction.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby keg411 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:00 am

swc65 wrote:
keg411 wrote:We didn't do partial constructive eviction, but thanks to this thread, I just looked this up and fixed my outline on regular constructive eviction (didn't have the part in where the T has to vacate and a couple other points).


What do you mean T has to vacate? Of course he will have to leave once the lease is destroyed, but he does NOT necessarily have to leave in order to establish a constructive or partial conviction.


I'm talking about constructive eviction based only on a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Not constructive eviction in general.

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby swc65 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:01 am

keg411 wrote:
swc65 wrote:
keg411 wrote:We didn't do partial constructive eviction, but thanks to this thread, I just looked this up and fixed my outline on regular constructive eviction (didn't have the part in where the T has to vacate and a couple other points).


What do you mean T has to vacate? Of course he will have to leave once the lease is destroyed, but he does NOT necessarily have to leave in order to establish a constructive or partial conviction.


I'm talking about constructive eviction based only on a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Not constructive eviction in general.



yeah T doesn't necessarily have to vacate to establish constructive eviction due to breach of quiet enjoyment.

keg411
Posts: 5935
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 9:10 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby keg411 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:18 am

swc65 wrote:
keg411 wrote:
swc65 wrote:
keg411 wrote:We didn't do partial constructive eviction, but thanks to this thread, I just looked this up and fixed my outline on regular constructive eviction (didn't have the part in where the T has to vacate and a couple other points).


What do you mean T has to vacate? Of course he will have to leave once the lease is destroyed, but he does NOT necessarily have to leave in order to establish a constructive or partial conviction.


I'm talking about constructive eviction based only on a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Not constructive eviction in general.


yeah T doesn't necessarily have to vacate to establish constructive eviction due to breach of quiet enjoyment.


Yeah, I was thinking of the remedy, which is what I forgot to put in my outline. In order to recover for breach, T has to vacate. That's what I get for thinking out loud ITT :lol:.

User avatar
traehekat
Posts: 3195
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:00 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby traehekat » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:15 am

Final draft of appellate brief submitted. Began as a piece of shit, then I had a brilliant revelation in how to organize it and make it awesome, and in the end it still turned out to be kind of a piece of shit lol. Oh well, hopefully it's enough to salvage a decent grade. Taking tomorrow to do absolutely nothing except lay around and wait for Bulls/Celtics.

User avatar
weee
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:34 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby weee » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:16 am

Civ Pro "Midterm" tomorrow, preparing for it probably not all that important but I thought it would get me to at least catch up on my outline, I totally failed. If the midterm even counted for 1% of my total grade I'd probably give a crap.

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby Grizz » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:18 am

Accidentally slept for 3 hours this afternoon. Oops.

User avatar
mbusch22
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:08 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby mbusch22 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:25 am

swc65 wrote:
Huh? Delivering actual possession is a covenant. The covenant of quiet enjoyment comes in after possession is delivered- just the promise to allow the tenant to keep on possessing, without interference from the LL.

The case we read for partial did not require the tenant to vacate (though I am sure there are cases that do require this). The LL built a brick wall on part of the land (only like two feet or something stupid) and that was a breach of the covenant which destroyed the lease.

I dunno what you mean by holdover. The tenant is the one that usually holds over at the end of the lease. So the LL could bring a trespass action against a holdover tenant. IF you mean the actual possession of an apartment is not delivered because the previous tenant has held over, then that is an interesting question. I would think that the LL would be in breach of his promise to deliver possession to the new tenant and have to evict the previous tenant in order to effectuate delivery. It would be weird to require the new tenant to evict the old one before the new tenant even has possession because the new tenant's interest would not have come to fruition without actual possession in the first place, so it's unclear that the new tenant would even have the right to exclude anyone before taking possession.


BeachTerror answered my questions more or less. I'm not sure you know what I'm talking about in regards to actual possession delivery.

There are two theories on whether or not a LL must deliver ACTUAL possession as opposed to legal possession. Under the English rule if the T gets legal possession but when he gets to the premises there is a holdover (from the PRIOR lease) or a trespasser, it is the LL's duty to litigate/get rid of him. Whereas the American rule puts the burden on the Tenant to litigate and get rid of a holdover/trespasser. I was just wondering whether the cause of action allowing the T to withhold rent while he is dispossessed (under the English Rule) would be stem from the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment.

Sorry my question is confusing. I think I confused myself typing it.

What do you mean by "delivering actual possession is a covenant", btw? I'm not sure I've ever heard of this.

User avatar
snowpeach06
Posts: 2426
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:32 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby snowpeach06 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:17 am

forty-two wrote:
snowpeach06 wrote:I'm trying to teach myself estates and future interests for class. Even the e&e isn't making it much easier. This makes me wonder if its horribly written, or if I simply don't have the patience to learn all these retarded different terms. I feel like property isn't going to bode well for me.

Try the law in a flash cards and this website: --LinkRemoved-- Both break up the terms pretty well and provide short hypos that let you digest one bit of information at a time.

Ohh, that site is good. Thanks!

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby swc65 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:35 am

mbusch22 wrote:
swc65 wrote:
Huh? Delivering actual possession is a covenant. The covenant of quiet enjoyment comes in after possession is delivered- just the promise to allow the tenant to keep on possessing, without interference from the LL.

The case we read for partial did not require the tenant to vacate (though I am sure there are cases that do require this). The LL built a brick wall on part of the land (only like two feet or something stupid) and that was a breach of the covenant which destroyed the lease.

I dunno what you mean by holdover. The tenant is the one that usually holds over at the end of the lease. So the LL could bring a trespass action against a holdover tenant. IF you mean the actual possession of an apartment is not delivered because the previous tenant has held over, then that is an interesting question. I would think that the LL would be in breach of his promise to deliver possession to the new tenant and have to evict the previous tenant in order to effectuate delivery. It would be weird to require the new tenant to evict the old one before the new tenant even has possession because the new tenant's interest would not have come to fruition without actual possession in the first place, so it's unclear that the new tenant would even have the right to exclude anyone before taking possession.


BeachTerror answered my questions more or less. I'm not sure you know what I'm talking about in regards to actual possession delivery.

There are two theories on whether or not a LL must deliver ACTUAL possession as opposed to legal possession. Under the English rule if the T gets legal possession but when he gets to the premises there is a holdover (from the PRIOR lease) or a trespasser, it is the LL's duty to litigate/get rid of him. Whereas the American rule puts the burden on the Tenant to litigate and get rid of a holdover/trespasser. I was just wondering whether the cause of action allowing the T to withhold rent while he is dispossessed (under the English Rule) would be stem from the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment.

Sorry my question is confusing. I think I confused myself typing it.

What do you mean by "delivering actual possession is a covenant", btw? I'm not sure I've ever heard of this.



Nah you weren't that confusing. I think this is just another example of why it's tough to talk to students with different professors because they each have their own version of the law that they teach. We never discussed the American rule vs. the English rule about holdovers.

As far as covenants go, a covenant is just a promise contained in the lease. Examples, are repair, pay rent, deliver actual possession, and quiet enjoyment. It's just a contract word.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7235
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby beach_terror » Thu Apr 07, 2011 9:31 am

swc65 wrote:
Nah you weren't that confusing. I think this is just another example of why it's tough to talk to students with different professors because they each have their own version of the law that they teach. We never discussed the American rule vs. the English rule about holdovers.

As far as covenants go, a covenant is just a promise contained in the lease. Examples, are repair, pay rent, deliver actual possession, and quiet enjoyment. It's just a contract word.

Not necessarily, covenants are implied a lot of the time. Like quiet enjoyment. Don't mean to nitpick your choice of words, but it's a kind of important difference.

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby swc65 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:19 pm

beach_terror wrote:
swc65 wrote:
Nah you weren't that confusing. I think this is just another example of why it's tough to talk to students with different professors because they each have their own version of the law that they teach. We never discussed the American rule vs. the English rule about holdovers.

As far as covenants go, a covenant is just a promise contained in the lease. Examples, are repair, pay rent, deliver actual possession, and quiet enjoyment. It's just a contract word.

Not necessarily, covenants are implied a lot of the time. Like quiet enjoyment. Don't mean to nitpick your choice of words, but it's a kind of important difference.



right, promises implied by law. I just mean that covenant is the same as promise. Just like in contracts the law implies some. But my point is that the delivery of possession is a covenant just like every other promise in the lease. But you're right not all covenants/promises are written in the lease because some are implied by law (which may or may not be mandatory).

minuit
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:39 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby minuit » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:37 pm

hello 1Ls... quick question. I will be starting this fall, and both schools I may go to (FSU or GW) have exam weeks going through December 16. How many people actually have exams on Friday?? I ask because my best friend just got engaged and asked me to be her maid of honor, and she set the date for December 17 without checking with my schedule. It's a destination wedding, too. So really just wondering how common it is to have exams on the last day... I am sort of sick to my stomach at the moment.

User avatar
beach_terror
Posts: 7235
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby beach_terror » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:43 pm

minuit wrote:hello 1Ls... quick question. I will be starting this fall, and both schools I may go to (FSU or GW) have exam weeks going through December 16. How many people actually have exams on Friday?? I ask because my best friend just got engaged and asked me to be her maid of honor, and she set the date for December 17 without checking with my schedule. It's a destination wedding, too. So really just wondering how common it is to have exams on the last day... I am sort of sick to my stomach at the moment.

This isn't the place to ask this, but exams can be any day of the week. Friday, Saturday, etc., are all game. If you have more questions, PM someone or start a thread in the lounge. This place is only for self-loathing.

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby gwuorbust » Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:49 pm

RAP Question: "I hereby devise all of my property equally to my children for their use and benefit during their respective lives, then equally to my surviving grandchildren who reach the age of twenty five years of life, then equally to my surviving great-grandchildren for life life, and then to my good friend Betty, if she is then living, or if not, to her heirs."

I believe that the clause "to my surviving grandchildren who reach the age of twenty five years of life" violates the RAP, correct. But where the does the property go next? If this was a separate conveyance that violated the RAP it would then revert back the person who transferred it or to his estate. Here, however, that would seem to create some sort of "endless loop" because this property is already coming from the estate. So does the property just go right to Betty?

ughhHH!!!

User avatar
swc65
Posts: 1003
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:27 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby swc65 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:01 pm

gwuorbust wrote:RAP Question: "I hereby devise all of my property equally to my children for their use and benefit during their respective lives, then equally to my surviving grandchildren who reach the age of twenty five years of life, then equally to my surviving great-grandchildren for life life, and then to my good friend Betty, if she is then living, or if not, to her heirs."

I believe that the clause "to my surviving grandchildren who reach the age of twenty five years of life" violates the RAP, correct. But where the does the property go next? If this was a separate conveyance that violated the RAP it would then revert back the person who transferred it or to his estate. Here, however, that would seem to create some sort of "endless loop" because this property is already coming from the estate. So does the property just go right to Betty?

ughhHH!!!



How old are the grandchildren?

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby gwuorbust » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:12 pm

swc65 wrote:
gwuorbust wrote:RAP Question: "I hereby devise all of my property equally to my children for their use and benefit during their respective lives, then equally to my surviving grandchildren who reach the age of twenty five years of life, then equally to my surviving great-grandchildren for life life, and then to my good friend Betty, if she is then living, or if not, to her heirs."

I believe that the clause "to my surviving grandchildren who reach the age of twenty five years of life" violates the RAP, correct. But where the does the property go next? If this was a separate conveyance that violated the RAP it would then revert back the person who transferred it or to his estate. Here, however, that would seem to create some sort of "endless loop" because this property is already coming from the estate. So does the property just go right to Betty?

ughhHH!!!



How old are the grandchildren?


only one grandchild, who is over 25. the class of grandchildren is closed.

User avatar
gwuorbust
Posts: 2087
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 11:37 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread (ROUND 2 SUCKAS)

Postby gwuorbust » Thu Apr 07, 2011 2:23 pm

gwuorbust wrote:
swc65 wrote:
gwuorbust wrote:RAP Question: "I hereby devise all of my property equally to my children for their use and benefit during their respective lives, then equally to my surviving grandchildren who reach the age of twenty five years of life, then equally to my surviving great-grandchildren for life life, and then to my good friend Betty, if she is then living, or if not, to her heirs."

I believe that the clause "to my surviving grandchildren who reach the age of twenty five years of life" violates the RAP, correct. But where the does the property go next? If this was a separate conveyance that violated the RAP it would then revert back the person who transferred it or to his estate. Here, however, that would seem to create some sort of "endless loop" because this property is already coming from the estate. So does the property just go right to Betty?

ughhHH!!!



How old are the grandchildren?


only one grandchild, who is over 25. the class of grandchildren is closed.


think I just answered my question. looking at my E&E, if the class is closed physiologically the RAP would not be violated because we know that the interest will vest.

alternatively, what if the grandchild was 1 year old. What would happen to the property then?




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 3 guests