BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam Forum

[traehekat]

Tomorrow's not too late to learn commercial paper, right? Riiiiiight? (Crickets).

I think you can learn the basics of any topic in a day.

What about the basics of say, oh... 7 topics?

[Geist13]

17/18 on that free NCBE practice set. Done studying. Fuck tomorrow. Maybe I'll do one MPT since I haven't been able to finish any of my previous 4 attempts in 90 minutes, but whatever. Fuck this shit. Barbri, fuck you, biggest waste of money in my life (including law school).

Dear Kids, don't do barbri. Go on ebay, get the barbri outlines and study those. Maybe sign up for one of those cheap companies (a few hundred dollars) that give you lots of multi-choice questions. but don't give barbri a dime.

[clashjones87]

Tomorrow's not too late to learn commercial paper, right? Riiiiiight? (Crickets).

I think you can learn the basics of any topic in a day.

What about the basics of say, oh... 7 topics?

Which 7? And have you actually not studied 7 topics?

[imchuckbass58]

Hate to ask another obvious question, but are you guys actually putting your laptops in a 2-1/2 gallon bag for the first day? A little surprised we can't bring them in laptop bags.

I'm going to bring one of those semi-disposable tote bags and just throw it out (or, stash it in a corner outside security and not care if it gets thrown out).

On the way back, I guess I'll just carry my laptop in hand.

[englawyer]

T, in his will, gives Blackacre to his two children A and B as joint tenants with right of survivorship. A predeceases, leaving C as issue.

which result:

#1) anti-lapse applies. C and B become tenants in common. it doesn't matter that A died first because A predeceased T. but A's death is a sufficient event to sever the joint tenancy, and C and B are tenants in common.

#2) anti-lapse applies. C and B become joint tenants with right of survivorship. it doesn't matter that A died first because A predeceased T

#2) A dies before B, so B takes a fee simple, even though A and B did not get an interest until T's death.

[Joe Quincy]

T, in his will, gives Blackacre to his two children A and B as joint tenants with right of survivorship. A predeceases, leaving C as issue.

which result:

#1) anti-lapse applies. C and B become tenants in common. it doesn't matter that A died first because A predeceased T. but A's death is a sufficient event to sever the joint tenancy, and C and B are tenants in common.

#2) anti-lapse applies. C and B become joint tenants with right of survivorship. it doesn't matter that A died first because A predeceased T

#2) A dies before B, so B takes a fee simple, even though A and B did not get an interest until T's death.

No idea but I argue the first #2.

But I also don't see this being asked on the bar.

[traehekat]

Tomorrow's not too late to learn commercial paper, right? Riiiiiight? (Crickets).

I think you can learn the basics of any topic in a day.

What about the basics of say, oh... 7 topics?

Which 7? And have you actually not studied 7 topics?

Trusts, Equity, Surety, Admin, Personal Property, Fex Tax, Conflicts.

I've done the lectures but have barely reviewed and done no essay. It's not too bad, though. Fed Tax and Surety won't be on it, so don't have to study for those. Conflicts is never it's own question, and there isn't much to it anyway. Equity and Personal Property are pretty short, simple topic so not really worried about that.

Trusts and Admin are the wild cards. I probably really need to focus on trusts today, and then making sure I remember everything else.

[PirateCap'n]

T, in his will, gives Blackacre to his two children A and B as joint tenants with right of survivorship. A predeceases, leaving C as issue.

which result:

#1) anti-lapse applies. C and B become tenants in common. it doesn't matter that A died first because A predeceased T. but A's death is a sufficient event to sever the joint tenancy, and C and B are tenants in common.

#2) anti-lapse applies. C and B become joint tenants with right of survivorship. it doesn't matter that A died first because A predeceased T

#2) A dies before B, so B takes a fee simple, even though A and B did not get an interest until T's death.

No idea but I argue the first #2.

But I also don't see this being asked on the bar.

Sadly, that's the exact kind of thing I expect to be on the bar.

[Joe Quincy]

Sadly, that's the exact kind of thing I expect to be on the bar.

Even if it were, the actual conclusion would be worth little. There are plenty of things to talk about:
- Lapse
- Antilapse
- How JTs and ROS work
- Vesting
- Why it isn't absolutely clear (apply facts)
- Result if TIC
- Result if the ROS was effective
- Come up with some kind of reason
- Apply to facts and conclusion

[FamilyLawEsq]

T, in his will, gives Blackacre to his two children A and B as joint tenants with right of survivorship. A predeceases, leaving C as issue.

which result:

#1) anti-lapse applies. C and B become tenants in common. it doesn't matter that A died first because A predeceased T. but A's death is a sufficient event to sever the joint tenancy, and C and B are tenants in common.

#2) anti-lapse applies. C and B become joint tenants with right of survivorship. it doesn't matter that A died first because A predeceased T

#2) A dies before B, so B takes a fee simple, even though A and B did not get an interest until T's death.

The answer is #3 or the second #2. This is exactly the time of thing you will see on the bar.

[Joe Quincy]

T, in his will, gives Blackacre to his two children A and B as joint tenants with right of survivorship. A predeceases, leaving C as issue.

which result:

#1) anti-lapse applies. C and B become tenants in common. it doesn't matter that A died first because A predeceased T. but A's death is a sufficient event to sever the joint tenancy, and C and B are tenants in common.

#2) anti-lapse applies. C and B become joint tenants with right of survivorship. it doesn't matter that A died first because A predeceased T

#2) A dies before B, so B takes a fee simple, even though A and B did not get an interest until T's death.

The answer is #3 or the second #2. This is exactly the time of thing you will see on the bar.

I could see this answer too, but I think both are arguable. The grant hasn't vested yet so no ROS. 3 is probably closest to the testator's intent but some states read the statute more strictly. (Then again, arguably the testator would have changed his will if he didn't want C to take in place of A after A's death.)

This is a ROS, but not words of survivorship that would overcome the antilapse statute. I see nothing in VA's antilapse statute (for example) that would suggest 3 is obviously correct over 2. You have a beneficiary who is a lineal descendant of a grandparent, a gift, that is lapsing, and no words of survivorship conditioning the gift upon surviving the testator.

What makes you think 3 is correct? I'd have to think that some states are at least split on this.

Edit: Arguably this grant wouldn't truly lapse because A's interest couldn't really go the residuary if he predeceased. I still think you'd get substantial credit for arguing it either way.

[dudders]

Hate to ask another obvious question, but are you guys actually putting your laptops in a 2-1/2 gallon bag for the first day? A little surprised we can't bring them in laptop bags.

I'm going to bring one of those semi-disposable tote bags and just throw it out (or, stash it in a corner outside security and not care if it gets thrown out).

On the way back, I guess I'll just carry my laptop in hand.

This is what I'm doing. All those free Westlaw and Lexis swag bags are coming in handy.

[FamilyLawEsq]

Edited

[legalnoeagle]

Nvm

[kaiser]

Tomorrow's not too late to learn commercial paper, right? Riiiiiight? (Crickets).

Literally had no idea what a commercial paper was up until a few hours ago. I figure so long as I can say the elements of a negotiable instrument, say what a holder in due course is, and say some stupid shit about the liability of the drawee bank, thats probably enough to get a point. Same thing with secured transactions. Would likely at most be 1/3 of an essay and nothing more.

[ninereal]

Tomorrow's not too late to learn commercial paper, right? Riiiiiight? (Crickets).

Literally had no idea what a commercial paper was up until a few hours ago. I figure so long as I can say the elements of a negotiable instrument, say what a holder in due course is, and say some stupid shit about the liability of the drawee bank, thats probably enough to get a point. Same thing with secured transactions. Would likely at most be 1/3 of an essay and nothing more.

SecTrans isn't actually that hard - just read through like ten or so of the essays and you'll start to pick it up pretty fast. It sounds awful when you've just heard the lecture, but it actually makes a lot more sense once you see the fact patterns.

[td6624]

SecTrans isn't actually that hard - just read through like ten or so of the essays and you'll start to pick it up pretty fast. It sounds awful when you've just heard the lecture, but it actually makes a lot more sense once you see the fact patterns.

This is my plan for later this evening. Just read model answers and get some patterns/vocab down so I can hope for a point or two.

At this point I'm just glad I'm not in California.

[kaiser]

Tomorrow's not too late to learn commercial paper, right? Riiiiiight? (Crickets).

Literally had no idea what a commercial paper was up until a few hours ago. I figure so long as I can say the elements of a negotiable instrument, say what a holder in due course is, and say some stupid shit about the liability of the drawee bank, thats probably enough to get a point. Same thing with secured transactions. Would likely at most be 1/3 of an essay and nothing more.

SecTrans isn't actually that hard - just read through like ten or so of the essays and you'll start to pick it up pretty fast. It sounds awful when you've just heard the lecture, but it actually makes a lot more sense once you see the fact patterns.

I don't think I even brought the NY Testing book with me on my trip. Will check up the sample essay answers on the BOLE site to learn some more buzzwords. I'm not sure if tonight should be dedicated to those tiny little areas we are unlikely to see, bolstering a bit more in the big areas we are likely to see, or just chilling the hell out and relaxing.

[Brassica7]

Question about intent for battery: if you make an intentional movement and accidentally hit someone, is that battery? For example, if I get excited and wave my hands and accidentally backhand someone I didn't know was behind me, did I commit battery? It was an intentional movement (not an involuntary spasm), but I did not intend harmful or offensive contact. Thanks for the help!

[kaiser]

Last time checking in before gametime. Just reading over some essay sample answers tonight to have some phrases and buzzwords fresh in my mind.

Just wanted to wish you all good luck. Its been a wild 2 months, and I don't think it will be wasted time for anyone on here. We are all gonna pass, then look back and laugh at how crazy we got. So go rock it tomorrow.

[traehekat]

Tomorrow's not too late to learn commercial paper, right? Riiiiiight? (Crickets).

Literally had no idea what a commercial paper was up until a few hours ago. I figure so long as I can say the elements of a negotiable instrument, say what a holder in due course is, and say some stupid shit about the liability of the drawee bank, thats probably enough to get a point. Same thing with secured transactions. Would likely at most be 1/3 of an essay and nothing more.

SecTrans isn't actually that hard - just read through like ten or so of the essays and you'll start to pick it up pretty fast. It sounds awful when you've just heard the lecture, but it actually makes a lot more sense once you see the fact patterns.

I would kill for a Secured Transactions question.

[bgdddymtty]

Question about intent for battery: if you make an intentional movement and accidentally hit someone, is that battery? For example, if I get excited and wave my hands and accidentally backhand someone I didn't know was behind me, did I commit battery? It was an intentional movement (not an involuntary spasm), but I did not intend harmful or offensive contact. Thanks for the help!

No. There must be the intent to cause (harmful or offensive) contact with someone.

[stratocophic]

Question about intent for battery: if you make an intentional movement and accidentally hit someone, is that battery? For example, if I get excited and wave my hands and accidentally backhand someone I didn't know was behind me, did I commit battery? It was an intentional movement (not an involuntary spasm), but I did not intend harmful or offensive contact. Thanks for the help!

No. There must be the intent to cause (harmful or offensive) contact with someone.

cr, it'd be negligence

[BeenDidThat]

Question about intent for battery: if you make an intentional movement and accidentally hit someone, is that battery? For example, if I get excited and wave my hands and accidentally backhand someone I didn't know was behind me, did I commit battery? It was an intentional movement (not an involuntary spasm), but I did not intend harmful or offensive contact. Thanks for the help!

No. There must be the intent to cause (harmful or offensive) contact with someone.

cr, it'd be negligence

Or, like nothing at all. We impliedly consent to daily contacts of life and all. But you're right, that's the best possible suit if you had to bring one.

[newyorker88]

What's everyone doing about laptops? We're not supposed to bring a laptop case. I'm curious what I should put it in so I'm not leaving the javits center with a laptop in my hands.