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
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:46 am

Dany wrote:I love my elective.


One of mine is great. That's the one I'm studying now which is why I'm happy. Studying for my other one is probably going to make me cry.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11742
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:56 am

I like my elective, immigration, but it's definitely going to be my worst grade. 24 hour take home? No thank you.

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:57 am

ilovesf wrote:I like my elective, immigration, but it's definitely going to be my worst grade. 24 hour take home? No thank you.


Aww, good luck. We had an overnight take home for civ pro. That wasn't as bad as I thought, so maybe yours won't be either! :-)

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:12 am

Eugenie Danglars wrote:
ilovesf wrote:I like my elective, immigration, but it's definitely going to be my worst grade. 24 hour take home? No thank you.


Aww, good luck. We had an overnight take home for civ pro. That wasn't as bad as I thought, so maybe yours won't be either! :-)

I've been so lucky to dodge these 24-hour take home exams. Like the idea of it being graded on a 3.0 curve just terrifies me to the core, knowing I need an A but only like 2 people will get one... I really hope to avoid any of those for the next 2 years.

User avatar
Lawst
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 11:02 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Lawst » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:18 am

I'm jealous of the people who get take-home exams. Yeah, there's probably more expectations, but it would nice to be able to spend more time on completing a thought, check things I'm not totally certain about and best of all, not have to sit in a room between Heavy Mouth Breather and Nervous Pen Clicker.
My first exam is con law, closed book, three hours. I'm like, what am I, a wizard?

User avatar
jessuf
Posts: 12496
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:27 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby jessuf » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:20 am

Bringing my finder's law question in here:

Does anyone know who has the superior interest in lost property vs. mislaid property vs. abandoned property vs. treasure trove when you have an original owner, finder, and landowner?


Also, Bob owns a very large desert. While walking his desert, he finds an SUV labeled "Desert Tours" that had crashed into a sand dune. Inside the SUV was a bag containing $24,000. Bob contacts Desert Tours, and they say that the SUV was stolen from them 6 months ago. Who has a superior right to the property?

The answer says that if the property is considered mislaid, Bob gets the money. If the property is considered abandoned, Desert Tours gets the money. I know that the owner of the vehicle and not the land counts as the owner of the premises. However, why is this the answer? I feel like it would be reversed. Desert Tours, as premises owner, should have a superior interest to the finder for mislaid items, and Bob, as the finder, would have a superior interest to the premises owner for abandoned items. Please help me figure out where my thinking process went wrong :(

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:30 am

Jessuf wrote:Bringing my finder's law question in here:

Does anyone know who has the superior interest in lost property vs. mislaid property vs. abandoned property vs. treasure trove when you have an original owner, finder, and landowner?




I have a chart of this that my prof wrote on the board. Non-chart form:
True owner has rights over all. Other than that:

Lost property goes to the finder.
Mislaid property to the locus owner
Abandoned property to the finder (if proven to be abandoned, true owner has lost rights).
Treasure trove to finder.

Exception- finder is agent of locus owner.
Exception- thing found is "attached" to the land (standard for attached-ness varies)
Last edited by Eugenie Danglars on Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:31 am

also, the E&E has a good section on this kind of stuff if you can get your hands on one.

User avatar
jessuf
Posts: 12496
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:27 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby jessuf » Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:54 am

Eugenie Danglars wrote:I have a chart of this that my prof wrote on the board. Non-chart form:
True owner has rights over all. Other than that:

Lost property goes to the finder.
Mislaid property to the locus owner
Abandoned property to the finder (if proven to be abandoned, true owner has lost rights).
Treasure trove to finder.

Exception- finder is agent of locus owner.
Exception- thing found is "attached" to the land (standard for attached-ness varies)



Thanks!

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:02 pm

RAP Question:

O devises to A for life, then to O's first grandchild and his or her heirs. (O has six children and no grandchildren).

State of Title:
A: Possossory estate in life estate.
O's first grandchild: Contingent remainder in FSA.
O's estate: Reversion in FSA.

Vulnerable to RAP:
O's First grandchilds contingent remainder in FSA.

Kill the lives in Being:
A, O.

Still Possible that it won't vest after 21 years?
I think so, what if O's children have O's first grandchild after 21 years of killing the lives in being. I don't see why thats not a possibility that would invalidate the contingent remainder. The book says this is a valid interest though. Why?

User avatar
angrybird
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:15 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby angrybird » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:04 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:RAP Question:

O devises to A for life, then to O's first grandchild and his or her heirs. (O has six children and no grandchildren).

State of Title:
A: Possossory estate in life estate.
O's first grandchild: Contingent remainder in FSA.
O's estate: Reversion in FSA.

Vulnerable to RAP:
O's First grandchilds contingent remainder in FSA.

Kill the lives in Being:
A, O.

Still Possible that it won't vest after 21 years?
I think so, what if O's children have their first child after 21 years of killing the lives in being. The book says this is a valid interest though. Why?

O's children are lives in being.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:11 pm

angrybird wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:RAP Question:

O devises to A for life, then to O's first grandchild and his or her heirs. (O has six children and no grandchildren).

State of Title:
A: Possossory estate in life estate.
O's first grandchild: Contingent remainder in FSA.
O's estate: Reversion in FSA.

Vulnerable to RAP:
O's First grandchilds contingent remainder in FSA.

Kill the lives in Being:
A, O.

Still Possible that it won't vest after 21 years?
I think so, what if O's children have their first child after 21 years of killing the lives in being. The book says this is a valid interest though. Why?

O's children are lives in being.



Thanks, for some reason I thought only the named people in the conveyance were lives in being.

If I changed it from "O devises" to "O to A", it would violate the RAP because O could possibly have after born children?

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:59 pm

I think the worst thing about studying for so long is how badly my lower back starts to ache from the library chairs. It's almost unbearable.

User avatar
akili
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:21 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby akili » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:22 pm

Woo! Done with Con Law. I'm cautiously optimistic and I think I caught a couple of subtleties in the facts. Honestly no idea how I did, but I don't think I could've done much more to prepare for it.

On to Crim and K's.

User avatar
gdane
Posts: 12317
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby gdane » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:24 pm

Boo!!! I did so much joinder stuff yesterday to prepare for my civ pro II exam, but almost none showed up on it. No counterclaim stuff or crossclaim stuff either. As far as I could spot, but Im pretty sure there wasnt.

I dont feel fantastic because while I did do a good analysis on the stuff I spotted, which after talking to others they spotted as well, I feel like there were really well hidden issues. We shall see when I get my grades back...

On to Contractos!

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby 3|ink » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:26 pm

gdane wrote:Boo!!! I did so much joinder stuff yesterday to prepare for my civ pro II exam, but almost none showed up on it. No counterclaim stuff or crossclaim stuff either. As far as I could spot, but Im pretty sure there wasnt.

I dont feel fantastic because while I did do a good analysis on the stuff I spotted, which after talking to others they spotted as well, I feel like there were really well hidden issues. We shall see when I get my grades back...

On to Contractos!

How much do you really have to do to prepare for joinder questions? It seems pretty straightforward.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11742
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:30 pm

gdane wrote:I dont feel fantastic because while I did do a good analysis on the stuff I spotted, which after talking to others they spotted as well, I feel like there were really well hidden issues. We shall see when I get my grades back...


You mean talking to your friends didn't make you feel superior to all of them like last time?

gdane wrote:Man I loved talking about my exams! The second they were over I went around talking to everyone just to see what I spotted that other people didnt.

I did feel bad last semester though when I made my friend realize that he completely missed a gigantic issue. He was sad after that.

User avatar
Shammis
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Shammis » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:32 pm

My local pub has free WiFi - finals win...

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:23 pm

Could someone help me with this estates question?

Arthur owned blackacre. Arthur devised it by will as follows: "To my son, Roger, for life; remainder to my grandchildren when they reach 21." At the time Arthur died, he had two sons, Roger and Ted. Roger and his wife have two minor children who were alive at the time of Arthur's death.

Based upon the foregoing, following Arthur's death, blackacre is most likely held in which manner?
A. Life estate in Roger; contingent remainder in Arthur's grandchildren; reversion in Arthur's heirs
B. Liefe estate in Roger; vested remainder in Arthur's grandchildren; reversion in Arthur's heirs
C. Life estate in Roger; reversion in Arthur's heirs
D. Life estate in Roger; contingent remainder in Arthur's grandchildren

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sundance95 » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:26 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:Could someone help me with this estates question?

Arthur owned blackacre. Arthur devised it by will as follows: "To my son, Roger, for life; remainder to my grandchildren when they reach 21." At the time Arthur died, he had two sons, Roger and Ted. Roger and his wife have two minor children who were alive at the time of Arthur's death.

Based upon the foregoing, following Arthur's death, blackacre is most likely held in which manner?
A. Life estate in Roger; contingent remainder in Arthur's grandchildren; reversion in Arthur's heirs
B. Liefe estate in Roger; vested remainder in Arthur's grandchildren; reversion in Arthur's heirs
C. Life estate in Roger; reversion in Arthur's heirs
D. Life estate in Roger; contingent remainder in Arthur's grandchildren

C. The 'remainder to my grandchildren' clause violates the classic RAP. Roger, who is the measuring life, may be outlived by his brother. His brother could then have a child after Roger's death. That child would mature more than 21 years after the end of the measuring life. So the entire clause must be struck, which means that Roger gets a life estate, after which the property will revert to A's heirs.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:30 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:Could someone help me with this estates question?

Arthur owned blackacre. Arthur devised it by will as follows: "To my son, Roger, for life; remainder to my grandchildren when they reach 21." At the time Arthur died, he had two sons, Roger and Ted. Roger and his wife have two minor children who were alive at the time of Arthur's death.

Based upon the foregoing, following Arthur's death, blackacre is most likely held in which manner?
A. Life estate in Roger; contingent remainder in Arthur's grandchildren; reversion in Arthur's heirs
B. Liefe estate in Roger; vested remainder in Arthur's grandchildren; reversion in Arthur's heirs
C. Life estate in Roger; reversion in Arthur's heirs
D. Life estate in Roger; contingent remainder in Arthur's grandchildren



I thought it was A, but the book says its C. When you kill the lives and being, Arthur, Roger, and Ted; you would know whether any of Roger or Teds children reach the age of 21 during the perpeituities period.

I MIGHT recall something about the 21 years ticking at the time of the grantors death when it comes to gifts. If so, then Roger and Ted could have children that would invalidate the contingent remainder. But if Roger and Ted are killed off before the 21 years starts ticking, then we must know whether the contingent remainder will vest or fail within the perpituities period.

HELP?!?!?!

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:32 pm

sundance95 wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:Could someone help me with this estates question?

Arthur owned blackacre. Arthur devised it by will as follows: "To my son, Roger, for life; remainder to my grandchildren when they reach 21." At the time Arthur died, he had two sons, Roger and Ted. Roger and his wife have two minor children who were alive at the time of Arthur's death.

Based upon the foregoing, following Arthur's death, blackacre is most likely held in which manner?
A. Life estate in Roger; contingent remainder in Arthur's grandchildren; reversion in Arthur's heirs
B. Liefe estate in Roger; vested remainder in Arthur's grandchildren; reversion in Arthur's heirs
C. Life estate in Roger; reversion in Arthur's heirs
D. Life estate in Roger; contingent remainder in Arthur's grandchildren

C. The 'remainder to my grandchildren' clause violates the classic RAP. Roger, who is the measuring life, may be outlived by his brother. His brother could then have a child after Roger's death. That child would mature more than 21 years after the end of the measuring life. So the entire clause must be struck, which means that Roger gets a life estate, after which the property will revert to A's heirs.


So brother doesn't have to die before the perpituities period begins? Is that because this was a will? We've been doing these questions as killing all the lives in being at once.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11742
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:35 pm

Property is bringing back nightmares of last December.

User avatar
crossarmant
Posts: 1116
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:01 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby crossarmant » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:36 pm

So, with Nat'l League of Cities v. Usery and subsequently Garcia v. San Antonio Metro, we have the court saying that initially that the federal government must respect the sovereign nature of the state govts and cannot interfere with how they regulate, but then Garcia says, no that the Congress is essentially a federal branch and do not fully represent state sovereignty so judicial review of state regulations is allowed. And then Printz/NY v. US go on to essentially say that Feds cannot force states to comply with federal programs that infringe with state sovereignty (like setting a 21 yo drinking age) but can incentivise them with federal funding and that they cannot use state officials to enforce federal functions...

Do I have this right? Guch, you seem to have this stuff down.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:37 pm

ilovesf wrote:Property is bringing back nightmares of last December.


Did you find the Con Law Q & A useful?




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests