California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
cavalierattitude
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cavalierattitude » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:52 am

.
Last edited by cavalierattitude on Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

cavalierattitude
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cavalierattitude » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:53 am

hopkins23 wrote:Whatd you guys think of todays performance test? I talked about that two part relevancy test a lot, and spent not as much time doing prejudice analysis and really fleshing out those 8 testimonial portions. What did you guys do?

Im always scared i screwed up a PT because i focused on the wrong thing.


Did an in-depth foundation analysis for BWS expert testimony being appropriate in the case generally according to the two-part test, then for each proposed subject did a quick analysis of relevance and probative/prejudicial balancing. Said everything should be admitted except the profiling.

mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:30 am

cavalierattitude wrote:
TaipeiMort wrote:
mrpickles wrote:
madison12991 wrote:Haha, yeah, the wills essay confused me to no end. I was like, "There's a valid will, the interested witness maybe shouldn't take under it, everyone else is good, holographic codicil also good, the first wife's death doesn't matter, what's more to say?"

Seriously, what else was there? I couldn't figure it out and left this morning thinking that between that and spending 40 minutes trying to figure out what intentional torts I was forgetting instead of focusing on weird remedies, I had failed for sure.


I don't think there was much more to say.
Interested witness but no facts to indicate undue influence, but even if not valid bc of witnesses/sig stuff --> it's valid holo codicil that validated it, and that clarified his his current wife gets stuff at death. Only other thing was "stepson" usage in will I analyzed. Said dont know if adopted, but even if not, he obviously thought about will changes with codicil, so I said the kid still takes, and also easy extrinsic evidence to figure out who stepson was. But I mean, what else was there? I ended up telling everything I knew about testamentary capacity, testamentary intent, etc. Small into on CA = CP state so you can only will away 1/2 of CP, etc.
I don't know, was there some hidden issue in there?


Interested witnesses requires two disinterested witnesses or under influence presumption
Lapse issue for first wife (if anti-lapse statute, stepson would inherit)
Stepson not an issue of Ted unless parent-child relationship established.
What happens if the will is not valid.
What does inserting Bertha into the agreement do to the orginal agreement (BS argument, Bertha might argue that his CP from the first marriage should be devised as well because he wanted her to succeed into it).


How is there a lapse issue? He didn't leave any devise to W when he died, the codicil changed it to B.
He also didn't have any CP from the first marriage. His estate was $300,000 of CP with B and $300,000 of SP in the bank.


Anybody figure out what the hell this guy was talking about with lapse and mixed CP from prior marriage? Or was he just trolling all us? Or did he really just get a 50 on it?

hlsperson1111
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:10 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby hlsperson1111 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:54 am

I said there would have been a potential lapse/anti-lapse issue if the will had not been amended (and briefly played it out) but that it wasn't an issue here because there was a valid codicil that gave his CP to B.

Also, I may be wrong on this, but I thought that a holographic codicil that is dated will republish the will as of that date, and that a valid republication can make the provisions of even an invalidly executed will valid (which means that the original will is valid at T's death even if there was a possibility that it was invalid prior to that because it was not properly witnessed). Is this right or am I just crazy/making stuff up?

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Fri Aug 02, 2013 7:59 am

There's a rule like that, and that's what I wrote too, but I'm not totally solid on the specifics of it. For one thing, a holographic doc needs all material provisions in handwriting, so I'm not actually certain it can republish typed portions of an invalid (assuming it was) formal will to which the codicil does not even refer.

huckabees
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:42 am

hlsperson1111 wrote:I said there would have been a potential lapse/anti-lapse issue if the will had not been amended (and briefly played it out) but that it wasn't an issue here because there was a valid codicil that gave his CP to B.

Also, I may be wrong on this, but I thought that a holographic codicil that is dated will republish the will as of that date, and that a valid republication can make the provisions of even an invalidly executed will valid (which means that the original will is valid at T's death even if there was a possibility that it was invalid prior to that because it was not properly witnessed). Is this right or am I just crazy/making stuff up?


Lapse wasn't an "issue" in that it won't affect the outcome. However, Barbri says non-issues that have facts should still be discussed to demonstrate understanding of why it's a non-issue.

E.g., many Qs have an AP "issue" where there is a statute of limitations on land involved, even when AP does not affect the end result.

DwightSchruteFarms
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:19 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby DwightSchruteFarms » Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:23 am

Hey guys, just curious...for each piece of evidence , were we supposed to break it down into that Slater 2 part test (sufficient facts + probative of contested issue)?

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:30 am

Don't think there was a specific way you were supposed to do it. I generated my own test by saying that you can either admit it entirely if sufficient evidence of BWS or only for credibility purposes. I viewed Slater as refining the doctrine by saying that while yes it can be admitted for credibility purposes, each portion has to be individually evaluated for either a factual basis or whether its needed to provided context to the jurt.

I came out with 6/8ths being admitted only for credibility purposes with an accompanying limiting instruction.

DwightSchruteFarms
Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:19 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby DwightSchruteFarms » Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:44 am

Fresh Prince wrote:Don't think there was a specific way you were supposed to do it. I generated my own test by saying that you can either admit it entirely if sufficient evidence of BWS or only for credibility purposes. I viewed Slater as refining the doctrine by saying that while yes it can be admitted for credibility purposes, each portion has to be individually evaluated for either a factual basis or whether its needed to provided context to the jurt.

I came out with 6/8ths being admitted only for credibility purposes with an accompanying limiting instruction.


Ok, this is very similar to what I did. I don't think the conclusion is very important but just wanted to make sure why org was somewhat on track.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Fri Aug 02, 2013 11:54 am

AntiHuman wrote:Pretty sure I failed...and the most annoying part is the 6 essays were very fair and were decent subjects...both PT's were annoying.

Deciding between 3 options:
-retake in february
-take the bar in another easy state-
-get real estate license or find another career

I just don't know if I can go through that brutal process again. I also don't know if I could ever get a 65 on a PT if those are the kind of PT's I'll be seeing in the future if I take the CA bar again.


Dude, relax. The exam was difficult for everyone. At the end of the day the state will have a goal to pass a certain amount of people. They will have to adjust the scaling to meet that goal.

Good to have a contingency plan, but don't worry that much. And yes it's OK to miss issues. You're not trying to get a CALI or book award, you're trying to pass.

Another
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 pm

.

Postby Another » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:05 pm

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

huckabees
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:17 pm

hopkins23 wrote:
cavalierattitude wrote:
hopkins23 wrote:Whatd you guys think of todays performance test? I talked about that two part relevancy test a lot, and spent not as much time doing prejudice analysis and really fleshing out those 8 testimonial portions. What did you guys do?

Im always scared i screwed up a PT because i focused on the wrong thing.


Did an in-depth foundation analysis for BWS expert testimony being appropriate in the case generally according to the two-part test, then for each proposed subject did a quick analysis of relevance and probative/prejudicial balancing. Said everything should be admitted except the profiling.


Similar here too. Glad someone else did a similar approach. I was worried that the foundation analysis was supposed to be short and the 8 topics were supposed to go in depth.

By the way, tone was supposed to be objective right?


I thought objective, but this is odd bc that means we had two objective memos, which as far as I can tell never happens.

cavalierattitude
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cavalierattitude » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:19 pm

Reinhardt wrote:There's a rule like that, and that's what I wrote too, but I'm not totally solid on the specifics of it. For one thing, a holographic doc needs all material provisions in handwriting, so I'm not actually certain it can republish typed portions of an invalid (assuming it was) formal will to which the codicil does not even refer.


yeah a codicil republishes, but for the reason you state i also did a section where I said maybe the codicil validated and published only the provisions of the 2000 will (which I said was invalid b/c I didn't know about the 2009 substantial compliance/harmless error statute) relating to "wife." but i also didn't know if him leaving a surviving wife his half of CP was a valid gift? does that normally just pass immediately to a surviving spouse as in joint tenancy? (I also bombed the CP essay obviously.)

cavalierattitude
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cavalierattitude » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:21 pm

huckabees wrote:
hlsperson1111 wrote:I said there would have been a potential lapse/anti-lapse issue if the will had not been amended (and briefly played it out) but that it wasn't an issue here because there was a valid codicil that gave his CP to B.

Also, I may be wrong on this, but I thought that a holographic codicil that is dated will republish the will as of that date, and that a valid republication can make the provisions of even an invalidly executed will valid (which means that the original will is valid at T's death even if there was a possibility that it was invalid prior to that because it was not properly witnessed). Is this right or am I just crazy/making stuff up?


Lapse wasn't an "issue" in that it won't affect the outcome. However, Barbri says non-issues that have facts should still be discussed to demonstrate understanding of why it's a non-issue.

E.g., many Qs have an AP "issue" where there is a statute of limitations on land involved, even when AP does not affect the end result.


Real stretch to call that an issue that had facts. I'm perfectly fine with not having discussed it because it was clearly irrelevant/inapplicable. "Had T not executed the codicil, there may have been a lapse issue with his devise to W, but the anti-lapse statute could operate to blah blah blah" <-- fuck that, take the facts as they're given to you.

Another
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 pm

.

Postby Another » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:24 pm

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
shepdawg
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:00 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby shepdawg » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:39 pm

mrpickles wrote:
cavalierattitude wrote:
TaipeiMort wrote:
madison12991 wrote:Haha, yeah, the wills essay confused me to no end. I was like, "There's a valid will, the interested witness maybe shouldn't take under it, everyone else is good, holographic codicil also good, the first wife's death doesn't matter, what's more to say?"

Seriously, what else was there? I couldn't figure it out and left this morning thinking that between that and spending 40 minutes trying to figure out what intentional torts I was forgetting instead of focusing on weird remedies, I had failed for sure.


I don't think there was much more to say.
Interested witness but no facts to indicate undue influence, but even if not valid bc of witnesses/sig stuff --> it's valid holo codicil that validated it, and that clarified his his current wife gets stuff at death. Only other thing was "stepson" usage in will I analyzed. Said dont know if adopted, but even if not, he obviously thought about will changes with codicil, so I said the kid still takes, and also easy extrinsic evidence to figure out who stepson was. But I mean, what else was there? I ended up telling everything I knew about testamentary capacity, testamentary intent, etc. Small into on CA = CP state so you can only will away 1/2 of CP, etc.
I don't know, was there some hidden issue in there?




Anybody figure out what the hell this guy was talking about with lapse and mixed CP from prior marriage? Or was he just trolling all us? Or did he really just get a 50 on it?


Maybe he's misnaming the Clawback provisiocn for the family of T's predeceased spouse. Anyone else spot that issue?

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:03 pm

"Had T not executed the codicil, there may have been a lapse issue with his devise to W, but the anti-lapse statute could operate to blah blah blah" <-- fuck that, take the facts as they're given to you.


Agreed. This isn't 1L gunner loser class. It's the fucking bar. Just do what you're told and get that license and move on.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:05 pm

shepdawg wrote:
Maybe he's misnaming the Clawback provisiocn for the family of T's predeceased spouse. Anyone else spot that issue?


Though about it, but couldn't remember the rule and didn't try to write about it. :|

Djemba Djemba
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:40 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Djemba Djemba » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:06 pm

I think he's saying "to my wife" if the codicil fails and if "my wife" is not an act of independent legal sig, then that gift would lapse

mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:08 pm

Reinhardt wrote:There's a rule like that, and that's what I wrote too, but I'm not totally solid on the specifics of it. For one thing, a holographic doc needs all material provisions in handwriting, so I'm not actually certain it can republish typed portions of an invalid (assuming it was) formal will to which the codicil does not even refer.

Yes but in the facts didn't he said he incorporated by reference on the codicil? I can't recall at moment.
But yes, a valid holographic codicil republishes an invalid will and makes it valid (the codicil doesn't have to contain the same provisions, it need only be meant as a codicil and be valid in it's own, either via formal or holographic)
Though again, there's a possibility it wasn't invalid in the first place

cavalierattitude
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cavalierattitude » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:20 pm

shepdawg wrote:
Maybe he's misnaming the Clawback provisiocn for the family of T's predeceased spouse. Anyone else spot that issue?


No? What is that?

User avatar
rorystewart
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:25 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby rorystewart » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:26 pm

Codicil should not have been valid because it was holographic and not all material terms were in his writing. I.e. he only said change "my wife" to Bertha. He didn't write "give my CP interest to B."

Also, am I the only one who discussed an omitted spouse taking for B?

User avatar
rorystewart
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:25 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby rorystewart » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:29 pm

Part of me is scared because according to BarBri I should fail this exam: my 5 turned in practice essays to them were graded 60, 65, 45, 65, 60. And I wrote my real exam answers with about the same degree of quality.

The other part of me thinks the BarBri graders are incompetent and that I should't trust them.

mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:31 pm

rorystewart wrote:Part of me is scared because according to BarBri I should fail this exam: my 5 turned in practice essays to them were graded 60, 65, 45, 65, 60. And I wrote my real exam answers with about the same degree of quality.

The other part of me thinks the BarBri graders are incompetent and that I should't trust them.


Have you seen 65's on baressays? Themis grader was tearing me a new one the whole time. But I looked and 65s are not the quality you'd think

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:35 pm

Length helps. I think a lot of the low graded essays on BarEssays are weak on analysis, but it's not something you notice when you're freaking out about your lack knowledge of the law.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BeeTeeZ, Bing [Bot], natemac60, TheDapperDruid, Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests