California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:08 am

@Reinhardt: I have been hearing people say that "almost no one" finishes the PT in time. Is this true? In other words, did you read passing answers that got cut off and/or had to make quick work of the final issues or paragraphs?

vacations
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby vacations » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:15 am

Ok...so woke up this morning and decided to do a quick refresher on California Civ Pro distinctions...ending up giving myself a pretty big freak-out moment since I pretty much know nothing about CA distinctions..i've only been hammering home the federal stuff...

how much time should i spend going over the Cal. stuff? I know civ pro has been tested in the last two exams so that i guess makes Civ Pro unlikely...but the fact that BarBri is scaring the nutz out of everybody saying that we're due for Cal. Civ Pro...what do you guys think?

..is it common/un-common to have a topic tested three straight times?

User avatar
Shaggier1
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:57 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Shaggier1 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:21 am

I think remedies is straightforward for the most part, but equitable liens and constructive trusts are giving me a pretty tough time.

If anyone feels like they can do a laymen's compare/contrast in a few short sentences, I'd love to take a look!

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:24 am

Foosters Galore wrote:
Reinhardt wrote:A bunch of evidence essays split up relevance into "logical relevance" and "legal relevance." Anyone's bar prep course teach this? Cause Themis sure didn't.


Barbri did.

Can someone explain how one can convey real property via a quitclaim deed and how that doesn't conflict with the implied covenant to provide marketable title that is in every contract for sales of land?


Remember that the implied covenant to provide marketable title basically expires at closing. The quitclaim deed doesn't provide any ongoing warranties like a general or special warranty deed does, but if between the sale contract and closing, one of the implied covenants of marketable title is breached, buyer has a remedy against the seller.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:25 am

As to the 52.5, another problem with it was it didn't IRAC. The assigning memo didn't specify any particular format, but the person adopted this one.

X. Rule Violation X

Facts

(half page recital of facts for each violation)

Issue

(state the law? weak or nonexistent analysis, along with whether there was a violation)

Recommendations for Client

As for finishing on time, at a glance they all did. But if the petered out in the later sections, that probably didn't help. Still, if you write something reasonable for the later sections, even if it isn't as fleshed out as the beginning, you can definitely get into 60+.

So let's say there's a 7 factor test, if you follow the directions, write 5+ pages, and cover all 7 factors with IRAC, that's almost certainly going to be 60+. The one I just checked to confirm this had nearly a page to cover each of the first few factors and then only a paragraph to cover the later the ones. And of course the California Bar sample answer had a page of analysis for each factor.

Score distributions, you have to keep in mind that these are only essays from people who've failed the bar, and even then only those people BarEssays chose to purchase from. With that in mind however, the 65 and up category in the PTs is the biggest one (vs 57.5 and below, 60-62.5), which isn't so for the regular essays.
Last edited by Reinhardt on Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:33 am

Shaggier1 wrote:I think remedies is straightforward for the most part, but equitable liens and constructive trusts are giving me a pretty tough time.

If anyone feels like they can do a laymen's compare/contrast in a few short sentences, I'd love to take a look!


Equitable lien is basically a security interest in the property. The main reason you'd want one is that the defendant has wrongfully acquired property that has since declined in value. So you don't want your property back, you want the VALUE of the property at the time you were wrongfully dispossessed (with equitable liens you can also get a deficiency judgment to make up for the rest of the value).

So say D has somehow ended up with title to your piece of land, but it is 2008 and the bottom just fell out of the housing market. The value of the land when you lost it was $200K, but now it is only $150K. You don't want a constructive trust, because that would only get you the property back (with no ability to get a deficiency judgement). Instead, you want an equitable lien on the property so you can get the $150K back, and then you pursue a deficiency judgment for the other $50K.

The other time an equitable lien is the way to go is where you can't reclaim your actual property because D has used the proceeds for something like improvements on his own house. So he fraudulently acquired your land, then sold it. You'd usually just want to trace to proceeds, but D has already spent them renovating his house. You can't get a constructive trust because he can't return your property to you, and you have no right to his whole house just because he spent your money fixing it up. So you get an equitable lien on his house, and he's either going to pay you back or you foreclose on the property to get your money back.

User avatar
Shaggier1
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:57 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Shaggier1 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:50 am

Shaggier1 wrote:
I think remedies is straightforward for the most part, but equitable liens and constructive trusts are giving me a pretty tough time.

If anyone feels like they can do a laymen's compare/contrast in a few short sentences, I'd love to take a look!


Equitable lien is basically a security interest in the property. The main reason you'd want one is that the defendant has wrongfully acquired property that has since declined in value. So you don't want your property back, you want the VALUE of the property at the time you were wrongfully dispossessed (with equitable liens you can also get a deficiency judgment to make up for the rest of the value).

So say D has somehow ended up with title to your piece of land, but it is 2008 and the bottom just fell out of the housing market. The value of the land when you lost it was $200K, but now it is only $150K. You don't want a constructive trust, because that would only get you the property back (with no ability to get a deficiency judgement). Instead, you want an equitable lien on the property so you can get the $150K back, and then you pursue a deficiency judgment for the other $50K.

The other time an equitable lien is the way to go is where you can't reclaim your actual property because D has used the proceeds for something like improvements on his own house. So he fraudulently acquired your land, then sold it. You'd usually just want to trace to proceeds, but D has already spent them renovating his house. You can't get a constructive trust because he can't return your property to you, and you have no right to his whole house just because he spent your money fixing it up. So you get an equitable lien on his house, and he's either going to pay you back or you foreclose on the property to get your money back.


This is exactly what I needed. These explanations were crossed in the outlines that I have been using. Thanks!!

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:13 pm

Emma. wrote:
Shaggier1 wrote:I think remedies is straightforward for the most part, but equitable liens and constructive trusts are giving me a pretty tough time.

If anyone feels like they can do a laymen's compare/contrast in a few short sentences, I'd love to take a look!


Equitable lien is basically a security interest in the property. The main reason you'd want one is that the defendant has wrongfully acquired property that has since declined in value. So you don't want your property back, you want the VALUE of the property at the time you were wrongfully dispossessed (with equitable liens you can also get a deficiency judgment to make up for the rest of the value).

So say D has somehow ended up with title to your piece of land, but it is 2008 and the bottom just fell out of the housing market. The value of the land when you lost it was $200K, but now it is only $150K. You don't want a constructive trust, because that would only get you the property back (with no ability to get a deficiency judgement). Instead, you want an equitable lien on the property so you can get the $150K back, and then you pursue a deficiency judgment for the other $50K.

The other time an equitable lien is the way to go is where you can't reclaim your actual property because D has used the proceeds for something like improvements on his own house. So he fraudulently acquired your land, then sold it. You'd usually just want to trace to proceeds, but D has already spent them renovating his house. You can't get a constructive trust because he can't return your property to you, and you have no right to his whole house just because he spent your money fixing it up. So you get an equitable lien on his house, and he's either going to pay you back or you foreclose on the property to get your money back.

Great summary. AFAIK, tracing funds is also available on constructive trusts.

User avatar
Shaggier1
Posts: 720
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:57 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Shaggier1 » Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:28 pm

What is everyone bringing in to the test center?

I have earplugs, an analog watch, highlighters, and pencils for MBE day. Guess we really can't bring much else in. Crazy that we can't bring water in...

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby DwightSchruteFarms » Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:31 pm

Shaggier1 wrote:What is everyone bringing in to the test center?

I have earplugs, an analog watch, highlighters, and pencils for MBE day. Guess we really can't bring much else in. Crazy that we can't bring water in...


Can we bring backpacks for the laptop days?

User avatar
spaacecdt
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 2:10 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spaacecdt » Fri Jul 26, 2013 1:49 pm

DwightSchruteFarms wrote:
Shaggier1 wrote:What is everyone bringing in to the test center?

I have earplugs, an analog watch, highlighters, and pencils for MBE day. Guess we really can't bring much else in. Crazy that we can't bring water in...


Can we bring backpacks for the laptop days?


Word on the street is no. Heard that some people do bring backpacks but then leave them in the hallway before entering the exam area-- no one will be watching them, though, so I think it's "do at your own risk."

User avatar
courtneylove
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby courtneylove » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:39 pm

DwightSchruteFarms wrote: I forgot which one, but recently, they DEDICATED the second question (there were two total for this essay) to malicious prosecution. I mean, come on. How is that the least bit indicative of whether we know torts.


Was it malicious prosecution re: protected speech? maybe they wanted you to bring up SLAPP/SLAPPback as well, like a crossover q.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby DwightSchruteFarms » Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:44 pm

courtneylove wrote:
DwightSchruteFarms wrote: I forgot which one, but recently, they DEDICATED the second question (there were two total for this essay) to malicious prosecution. I mean, come on. How is that the least bit indicative of whether we know torts.


Was it malicious prosecution re: protected speech? maybe they wanted you to bring up SLAPP/SLAPPback as well, like a crossover q.


No, it was specific to Torts. And SLAPP only applies to CA CivPro, to my understanding. I don't think that would apply to a Torts question.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:25 pm

Random Wills question: If someone disclaims their interest under a will, can the anti-lapse statute apply meaning the interest passes to their issue? Or does the interest automatically lapse if you disclaim?

User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:45 pm

courtneylove wrote:
DwightSchruteFarms wrote: I forgot which one, but recently, they DEDICATED the second question (there were two total for this essay) to malicious prosecution. I mean, come on. How is that the least bit indicative of whether we know torts.


Was it malicious prosecution re: protected speech? maybe they wanted you to bring up SLAPP/SLAPPback as well, like a crossover q.


Maybe it was a Torts/PR crossover? We spent a lot of time on malicious prosecution in my ethics class. There are some sanctions/duties issues there. Also, the whole "without probable cause" element requires some analysis of underlying substantive law of the original claim, so there's potential for additional crossover there.

But yeah, I agree that an entire question on MP is pretty lame.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:21 pm

Emma. wrote:Random Wills question: If someone disclaims their interest under a will, can the anti-lapse statute apply meaning the interest passes to their issue? Or does the interest automatically lapse if you disclaim?

A beneficiary who disclaims a gift is treated as if he or she predeceased the testator. I guess this means the issue will still get it under the anti-lapse statute unless a different interpretation is required by the will.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:22 pm

Emma. wrote:Random Wills question: If someone disclaims their interest under a will, can the anti-lapse statute apply meaning the interest passes to their issue? Or does the interest automatically lapse if you disclaim?


I think that's the point of it. Themis says the person disclaiming their interest is treated as if they predeceased the decedent. The lecture dude mentioned it's for tax reasons, so I assume it's a tax efficient way to get property to your issue.

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

.

Postby Another » Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:15 pm

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:34 pm

Reinhardt wrote:
Emma. wrote:Random Wills question: If someone disclaims their interest under a will, can the anti-lapse statute apply meaning the interest passes to their issue? Or does the interest automatically lapse if you disclaim?


I think that's the point of it. Themis says the person disclaiming their interest is treated as if they predeceased the decedent. The lecture dude mentioned it's for tax reasons, so I assume it's a tax efficient way to get property to your issue.


Thanks. Just one more Q: Anti-lapse statute only applies for wills, right? So if you disclaimed an intestate share your issue would get nothing under anti-lapse?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:26 pm

Emma. wrote:
Reinhardt wrote:
Emma. wrote:Random Wills question: If someone disclaims their interest under a will, can the anti-lapse statute apply meaning the interest passes to their issue? Or does the interest automatically lapse if you disclaim?


I think that's the point of it. Themis says the person disclaiming their interest is treated as if they predeceased the decedent. The lecture dude mentioned it's for tax reasons, so I assume it's a tax efficient way to get property to your issue.


Thanks. Just one more Q: Anti-lapse statute only applies for wills, right? So if you disclaimed an intestate share your issue would get nothing under anti-lapse?


I think that's two separate problems. Anti-lapse isn't relevant in intestate succession because there is no "gift" to lapse. However I have a feeling that disclaiming your intestate share would mean you're still treated as predeceased, which I think normally would mean your issue would take

User avatar
Mick Haller
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Mick Haller » Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:52 pm

hopkins23 wrote:Hey all: after the CA test is all well and done, we can and will be posting here and talking about the CA essays right? (whether they were the expected topics, how hard they were, what were the major issues to bring up, etc.) Because we need to stick with that gunning spirit.


Better to just leave it be and start your vacation

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby DwightSchruteFarms » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:01 pm

Mick Haller wrote:
hopkins23 wrote:Hey all: after the CA test is all well and done, we can and will be posting here and talking about the CA essays right? (whether they were the expected topics, how hard they were, what were the major issues to bring up, etc.) Because we need to stick with that gunning spirit.


Better to just leave it be and start your vacation


I refuse to talk to anyone about the essays, PTs, or MBEs after its done. As soon as that last PT-B is turned in, I'm hopping in my car, driving to the nearest bar, and facing a cold Hef pint

Kretzy
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Kretzy » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:05 pm

DwightSchruteFarms wrote:
Mick Haller wrote:
hopkins23 wrote:Hey all: after the CA test is all well and done, we can and will be posting here and talking about the CA essays right? (whether they were the expected topics, how hard they were, what were the major issues to bring up, etc.) Because we need to stick with that gunning spirit.


Better to just leave it be and start your vacation


I refuse to talk to anyone about the essays, PTs, or MBEs after its done. As soon as that last PT-B is turned in, I'm hopping in my car, driving to the nearest bar, and facing a cold Hef pint


We've reserved a table for 10 at our favorite "nice" bar in SF come the end of Thursday. Then, after we leave there, I'm going to the Mission for tacos and a dram-shop-statute-liability inducing amount of alcohol.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:33 pm

hopkins23 wrote:Hey all: after the CA test is all well and done, we can and will be posting here and talking about the CA essays right? (whether they were the expected topics, how hard they were, what were the major issues to bring up, etc.) Because we need to stick with that gunning spirit.

Yeah I'm gonna stick around and torture myself probably, while trying to get a job and fix up my car.
Last edited by a male human on Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby DwightSchruteFarms » Fri Jul 26, 2013 10:49 pm

a male human wrote:
hopkins23 wrote:Hey all: after the CA test is all well and done, we can and will be posting here and talking about the CA essays right? (whether they were the expected topics, how hard they were, what were the major issues to bring up, etc.) Because we need to stick with that gunning spirit.

Yeah I'm gonna stick around and torture myself probably, while trying to get a job and fix up my car.

TMI warning!


Last warning (I don't even know if this is OK under TLS rules)


Speaking of torture, I'm pretty sure my dad caught me masturbating this afternoon as I was about to finish (and did finish, too :oops: was totally involuntary). Didn't realize he had returned from work early because I just had to have earbuds on today. One more thing to distract me. Oh well, after years of doing something, you're bound to be dealt a perfectly bad hand. Reminds me of my first car accident a few weeks ago. I was the one who rear ended, but I remembered statements of fault without offer to compromise are not protected, so I tried to keep my sorries to a minimum. This explains the car part above. Well, hopefully this cheered up some of you here.


I'm literally laughing my ass off in the library right now. Thank you




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: curry4bfast, eg13, Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests