OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby stillwater » Sat May 04, 2013 11:17 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
Bronck wrote: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

User avatar
Lacepiece23
Posts: 835
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Lacepiece23 » Sun May 05, 2013 12:02 am

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.

User avatar
RaleighStClair
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:10 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby RaleighStClair » Sun May 05, 2013 12:27 am

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?

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby stillwater » Sun May 05, 2013 12:31 am

RaleighStClair wrote: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.

User avatar
RaleighStClair
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:10 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby RaleighStClair » Sun May 05, 2013 12:35 am

stillwater wrote:
RaleighStClair wrote: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.

User avatar
dannynoonan87
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:36 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby dannynoonan87 » Sun May 05, 2013 1:05 am

RaleighStClair wrote:
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!

User avatar
RaleighStClair
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:10 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby RaleighStClair » Sun May 05, 2013 1:53 am

dannynoonan87 wrote:
RaleighStClair wrote:
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.

User avatar
dannynoonan87
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:36 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby dannynoonan87 » Sun May 05, 2013 1:59 am

RaleighStClair wrote:
dannynoonan87 wrote:
RaleighStClair wrote:
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?

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby skers » Sun May 05, 2013 2:07 am

RaleighStClair wrote:
stillwater wrote:
RaleighStClair wrote: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.

User avatar
Blessedassurance
Posts: 2081
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Blessedassurance » Sun May 05, 2013 2:35 am

TemporarySaint wrote:
RaleighStClair wrote:
stillwater wrote:
RaleighStClair wrote: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?

User avatar
RaleighStClair
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:10 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby RaleighStClair » Sun May 05, 2013 2:38 am

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
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby HellOnHeels » Sun May 05, 2013 9:20 am

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.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby stillwater » Sun May 05, 2013 9:51 am

HellOnHeels wrote: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
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby HellOnHeels » Sun May 05, 2013 10:28 am

stillwater wrote:
HellOnHeels wrote: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.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby stillwater » Sun May 05, 2013 10:39 am

HellOnHeels wrote:
stillwater wrote:
HellOnHeels wrote: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
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:12 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby bananapeanutbutter » Sun May 05, 2013 10:52 am

stillwater wrote:
HellOnHeels wrote:
stillwater wrote:
HellOnHeels wrote: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.

User avatar
Danger Zone
Posts: 7303
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:36 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Danger Zone » Sun May 05, 2013 12:31 pm

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

User avatar
mephistopheles
Posts: 1947
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:43 am

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby mephistopheles » Sun May 05, 2013 12:57 pm

fuck the casenote.

User avatar
franklyscarlet
Posts: 2914
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby franklyscarlet » Sun May 05, 2013 1:17 pm

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..."

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun May 05, 2013 1:53 pm

franklyscarlet wrote: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.

User avatar
franklyscarlet
Posts: 2914
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby franklyscarlet » Sun May 05, 2013 2:01 pm

Blumpbeef wrote:
franklyscarlet wrote: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
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:22 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Transfer2DC » Sun May 05, 2013 3:16 pm

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?

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun May 05, 2013 3:19 pm

Transfer2DC wrote: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.

User avatar
Bronck
Posts: 2025
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:28 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby Bronck » Sun May 05, 2013 3:52 pm

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
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS)

Postby HellOnHeels » Sun May 05, 2013 3:54 pm

Bronck wrote: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.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: black lab, grades??, LawHammer and 10 guests