OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[stillwater]

I have no energy guys haven't even taken the first test yet

Me neither. I'm going straight cruise control from here on out. I'll take whatever grades they wanna give me.

I dunno if I have the energy to read fact patterns anymore

[Lacepiece23]

damn this motivation thread turned into the exam depression thread. Took a look back at the first few pages and the vive was completely different lol. C'mon guys only a few more weeks hang in there. I know i'm no LGL, but we got this shit.

[RaleighStClair]

Hey guys, can someone help me out with this property question? I feel dumb but I don't understand why A is the answer and not D.

A, B, and C owned Blackacre as joint tenants. A conveyed her interest to C. As a result:

a. If B dies, C would own the whole, by herself.
b. If C dies, B would own the whole, by herself.
c. Both of the above.
d. None of the above.

I thought because the unity of interest was severed, C and B would become tenants in common. Can someone 'splain this to me?

[stillwater]

Hey guys, can someone help me out with this property question? I feel dumb but I don't understand why A is the answer and not D.

A, B, and C owned Blackacre as joint tenants. A conveyed her interest to C. As a result:

a. If B dies, C would own the whole, by herself.
b. If C dies, B would own the whole, by herself.
c. Both of the above.
d. None of the above.

I thought because the unity of interest was severed, C and B would become tenants in common. Can someone 'splain this to me?

It's D. When A conveys the interest to C, it breaks the unity of interest. Thus, C is no longer a JT. And B cannot be a JT with himself. I dunno how A could possible be correct. Unless this is some fucked up exception but it seems by rigid application of CL rules it should be D.

[RaleighStClair]

Hey guys, can someone help me out with this property question? I feel dumb but I don't understand why A is the answer and not D.

A, B, and C owned Blackacre as joint tenants. A conveyed her interest to C. As a result:

a. If B dies, C would own the whole, by herself.
b. If C dies, B would own the whole, by herself.
c. Both of the above.
d. None of the above.

I thought because the unity of interest was severed, C and B would become tenants in common. Can someone 'splain this to me?

It's D. When A conveys the interest to C, it breaks the unity of interest. Thus, C is no longer a JT. And B cannot be a JT with himself. I dunno how A could possible be correct. Unless this is some fucked up exception but it seems by rigid application of CL rules it should be D.

Ahh thank you. That's what I thought. I think maybe the answer key that this guy posted isn't completely correct....that's f'ing frustrating.

[dannynoonan87]

Ahh thank you. That's what I thought. I think maybe the answer key that this guy posted isn't completely correct....that's f'ing frustrating.

I'm doing these same ones right now!

[RaleighStClair]

Ahh thank you. That's what I thought. I think maybe the answer key that this guy posted isn't completely correct....that's f'ing frustrating.

I'm doing these same ones right now!

http://lawweb.pace.edu/jhumbach/finalexams.htm - These ones? Have you noticed any strange questions/answers? Granted, this wasn't my class and profs teach things differently sometimes.

[dannynoonan87]

Ahh thank you. That's what I thought. I think maybe the answer key that this guy posted isn't completely correct....that's f'ing frustrating.

I'm doing these same ones right now!

http://lawweb.pace.edu/jhumbach/finalexams.htm - These ones? Have you noticed any strange questions/answers? Granted, this wasn't my class and profs teach things differently sometimes.

One I did about tolling for disabilities in Ad Po didn't make sense.

I'm only practicing about 60% of the questions since my class was straight real property + pierson v post, while it looks like this class at pace covered a lot of personal property.

Who's got some Rule Against Purps questions with answers?

[skers]

Hey guys, can someone help me out with this property question? I feel dumb but I don't understand why A is the answer and not D.

A, B, and C owned Blackacre as joint tenants. A conveyed her interest to C. As a result:

a. If B dies, C would own the whole, by herself.
b. If C dies, B would own the whole, by herself.
c. Both of the above.
d. None of the above.

I thought because the unity of interest was severed, C and B would become tenants in common. Can someone 'splain this to me?

It's D. When A conveys the interest to C, it breaks the unity of interest. Thus, C is no longer a JT. And B cannot be a JT with himself. I dunno how A could possible be correct. Unless this is some fucked up exception but it seems by rigid application of CL rules it should be D.

Ahh thank you. That's what I thought. I think maybe the answer key that this guy posted isn't completely correct....that's f'ing frustrating.

I don't know man, I'm pretty sure the answer is A. The unities were only broken on 1/3 of the property, BC are joint tenants in the other 2/3s. B only takes the 2/3 interest on C's death.

[Blessedassurance]

Hey guys, can someone help me out with this property question? I feel dumb but I don't understand why A is the answer and not D.

A, B, and C owned Blackacre as joint tenants. A conveyed her interest to C. As a result:

a. If B dies, C would own the whole, by herself.
b. If C dies, B would own the whole, by herself.
c. Both of the above.
d. None of the above.

I thought because the unity of interest was severed, C and B would become tenants in common. Can someone 'splain this to me?

It's D. When A conveys the interest to C, it breaks the unity of interest. Thus, C is no longer a JT. And B cannot be a JT with himself. I dunno how A could possible be correct. Unless this is some fucked up exception but it seems by rigid application of CL rules it should be D.

Ahh thank you. That's what I thought. I think maybe the answer key that this guy posted isn't completely correct....that's f'ing frustrating.

I don't know man, I'm pretty sure the answer is A. The unities were only broken on 1/3 of the property, BC are joint tenants in the other 2/3s. B only takes the 2/3 interest on C's death.

huh?

[RaleighStClair]

I'm not sure how you can separate the 1/3 that A conveyed from the remaining 2/3. C now has a 2/3 interest, which compared to B's 1/3 interest, breaks the unity of interest, no?

That was a lot of "interests."

[HellOnHeels]

Let's say that A conveyed to D instead. Then D would be TIC with B/C (with B and C being joint tenants still).

But A conveyed to C. So B/C are still joint tenants with respect to 2/3 of the property, with C owning another 1/3 from A.

When B dies, C get's B's 1/3. C now has A's 1/3, B's 1/3, and his own 1/3. He owns it all.

[stillwater]

Let's say that A conveyed to D instead. Then D would be TIC with B/C (with B and C being joint tenants still).

But A conveyed to C. So B/C are still joint tenants with respect to 2/3 of the property, with C owning another 1/3 from A.

When B dies, C get's B's 1/3. C now has A's 1/3, B's 1/3, and his own 1/3. He owns it all.

Wouldn't C's interest merge though? That's what I don't get.

[HellOnHeels]

Let's say that A conveyed to D instead. Then D would be TIC with B/C (with B and C being joint tenants still).

But A conveyed to C. So B/C are still joint tenants with respect to 2/3 of the property, with C owning another 1/3 from A.

When B dies, C get's B's 1/3. C now has A's 1/3, B's 1/3, and his own 1/3. He owns it all.

Wouldn't C's interest merge though? That's what I don't get.

I thought interests could only merge if one was a lesser duration/smaller interest (such as a life estate merging with a fee simple, or an easement merging with the servient estate). C would own two interests in fee simple, so merger wouldn't work. That's how I would explain it.

You could maybe also make an argument for, that if C's interests did merge, a court would find it wouldn't destroy the joint tenancy between B and C. Obviously O wanted there to be right of survivorship. It wouldn't make sense to let A convey to D and not destroy the survivorship between B and C, but if A conveys to C, it would. Then A could just convey to a strawman, who then would convey to C, and most jurisdictions have gotten rid of strawman, I think.

Property. Sheesh.

[stillwater]

Let's say that A conveyed to D instead. Then D would be TIC with B/C (with B and C being joint tenants still).

But A conveyed to C. So B/C are still joint tenants with respect to 2/3 of the property, with C owning another 1/3 from A.

When B dies, C get's B's 1/3. C now has A's 1/3, B's 1/3, and his own 1/3. He owns it all.

Wouldn't C's interest merge though? That's what I don't get.

I thought interests could only merge if one was a lesser duration/smaller interest (such as a life estate merging with a fee simple, or an easement merging with the servient estate). C would own two interests in fee simple, so merger wouldn't work. That's how I would explain it.

You could maybe also make an argument for, that if C's interests did merge, a court would find it wouldn't destroy the joint tenancy between B and C. Obviously O wanted there to be right of survivorship. It wouldn't make sense to let A convey to D and not destroy the survivorship between B and C, but if A conveys to C, it would. Then A could just convey to a strawman, who then would convey to C, and most jurisdictions have gotten rid of strawman, I think.

Property. Sheesh.

Yea that seems to make sense. I think it's a stupid question.

[bananapeanutbutter]

Let's say that A conveyed to D instead. Then D would be TIC with B/C (with B and C being joint tenants still).

But A conveyed to C. So B/C are still joint tenants with respect to 2/3 of the property, with C owning another 1/3 from A.

When B dies, C get's B's 1/3. C now has A's 1/3, B's 1/3, and his own 1/3. He owns it all.

Wouldn't C's interest merge though? That's what I don't get.

I thought interests could only merge if one was a lesser duration/smaller interest (such as a life estate merging with a fee simple, or an easement merging with the servient estate). C would own two interests in fee simple, so merger wouldn't work. That's how I would explain it.

You could maybe also make an argument for, that if C's interests did merge, a court would find it wouldn't destroy the joint tenancy between B and C. Obviously O wanted there to be right of survivorship. It wouldn't make sense to let A convey to D and not destroy the survivorship between B and C, but if A conveys to C, it would. Then A could just convey to a strawman, who then would convey to C, and most jurisdictions have gotten rid of strawman, I think.

Property. Sheesh.

Yea that seems to make sense. I think it's a stupid question.

He was over-thinking it. If you outlive the other joint tenants, you win the game and get the prize $. He was bringing in Doctrine of Worthier Title. Don't use the cotenancies to then think about the estates, just think about them as the end of the estates - how you can co-own whatever estate was previously conveyed to you. It isn't that deep.

[Danger Zone]

If the interests did merge for C, wouldn't that destroy the unities...

[mephistopheles]

fuck the casenote.

[franklyscarlet]

I interrupt this property review to announce: self-schedule is the devil.

"I'll take it Sunday morning..."
"well, maybe I'll take it this evening..."
"Monday wouldn't be bad..."

[Blumpbeef]

I interrupt this property review to announce: self-schedule is the devil.

"I'll take it Sunday morning..."
"well, maybe I'll take it this evening..."
"Monday wouldn't be bad..."

GTFO of my head.

CSWS bloodpact:We're taking em Sunday evening.

[franklyscarlet]

I interrupt this property review to announce: self-schedule is the devil.

"I'll take it Sunday morning..."
"well, maybe I'll take it this evening..."
"Monday wouldn't be bad..."

GTFO of my head.

CSWS bloodpact:We're taking em Sunday evening.

Actually, this is a great idea.

[Transfer2DC]

Can someone explain to me how a "Pick 2 out of the 3 problems to answer" can be graded on a curve.

My teacher has no said rubric or anything, but I do not understand how the grades would be calculated.

If 50 people in the class choose 1 & 2, and only 10 choose to answer a combination with question 3, how is it possible to grade those exams against each other?

Am I just mentally fried from exams, or am I missing something?

[Blumpbeef]

Can someone explain to me how a "Pick 2 out of the 3 problems to answer" can be graded on a curve.

My teacher has no said rubric or anything, but I do not understand how the grades would be calculated.

If 50 people in the class choose 1 & 2, and only 10 choose to answer a combination with question 3, how is it possible to grade those exams against each other?

Am I just mentally fried from exams, or am I missing something?

They're all worth the same. Your exam is out of a hundred. Each question is 50 points. You get a score out of fifty relative to whoever did that same problem.

If you think one is harder or more time consuming than te others don't do it, you do t get anything for being an hero.

[Bronck]

My sleep schedule is 8am to 3pm. How do I fix this for a 10am final on Tues?

I'm like actually serious lol

[HellOnHeels]

My sleep schedule is 8am to 3pm. How do I fix this for a 10am final on Tues?

I'm like actually serious lol

Stay awake until 8 pm tomorrow. Sleep until 8 am Tuesday. Hope for the best.