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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:40 pm

Foosters Galore wrote:Can someone quickly, just in case, explain to me the rules for what happens in a land k where the k has more land than the actual property, and vice versa? Much appreciated


Specific performance with a pro rata reduction in purchase price.

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:40 pm

JDCA2012 wrote:
Emma. wrote:
her?? wrote:
huckabees wrote:Encroachment on an easement previously granted?



is that the one that had an answer of it being usable? i think i put that though i don't know what law suggests that. there was another about a guy that expressly granted an easement, then bought back the property (so it merged and went away) then resold that part of the lot and then died and the son i think built a fence and another property owner offered an easement at a price, and there was a takings question about a setback too


The answer to that fucking takings question better be that it required the farmers to allow the hikers on their land. Scalia said straight up that a forced easement was a per se taking in some case I read in law school.


I said per se taking because public was going on his land.
But I also got completely fucked up on this, because I think it was July 2010 essays about when 10 acres of a 100 acre lot were taken in their entirety? or partially? or how do you analyze that taking? Anyway, the model answers had completely fucking different interpretations of how the takings clause plays out. So that came in my head and I was like, shit, I don't know.

Also re: the fence and easement one. Fuck. I couldn't decide between trespass because he had to go on his land to do it, or that he was privileged. I went with privileged for fucking with his easement? I don't know. I can't even remember.


I put nuisance because I saw the nuisance language in two areas, and the fence was depriving him of his use and enjoyment of the easement. This is laughable analysis though.

ben bernanke
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:01 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby ben bernanke » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:41 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
randomdandom wrote:
ben bernanke wrote:Is notice required for the burden of an easement to run?


no, the burden of a covenant runs without notice.


Burden of easement does not run to BFPs.



Cool. So can defeat BFP status with inquiry, constructive or actual notice?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:41 pm

jmhendri wrote:
randomdandom wrote:
jmhendri wrote:Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.


didn't it involve a new regulation that required 5 foot offsets off the road??


Was it? I thought the word easement was in there.


It required offsets for the purpose of allowing hikers onto the land. Basically requiring an easement without saying so.

User avatar
softey
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:03 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby softey » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:41 pm

usuaggie wrote:
TaipeiMort wrote:What was the answer to the one where the developer had a covenant for single family homes and they built an apartment building. I put he no longer had a property right in the area, but should have chose A (the answer with the weird word I had never heard of before-- pat or pad or something)

Put the same as you


Same--is that NOT the right answer?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:42 pm

What does "notice" consist of? The benefit runs without "notice" but I'm not sure how you'd even know you have a benefit to enforce if there's no notice.

User avatar
usuaggie
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby usuaggie » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:42 pm

neilu789 wrote:What about that schmuck who had the deed in his hand and everyone told him to just write his name on it, but he refused and the grantor died?


I had no clue but I said A. Don't remember what it was. Not because he recorded, not because he was an agent, not because of a future interest turning to FSA. The other one lol

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:43 pm

jmhendri wrote:Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.


According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.


It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.

randomdandom
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:43 pm

ben bernanke wrote:
randomdandom wrote:
ben bernanke wrote:Is notice required for the burden of an easement to run?


no, the burden of a covenant runs without notice.


Wait, what? I thought notice WAS required for covenants (intent, touch and concern, privities, notice)


For the burden to run:
Writing
Intent
Touch and Concern
Horizontal Privity
Notice

For the Benefit to run
Writing
Intent
Touch and Concern
Vertical Privity

Equitable Servitudes
Writing
intent
touch and concern
notice

I think I wrote it wrong before - i need to write out all three in that order to get it right. lol.

JDCA2012
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:43 pm

Foosters Galore wrote:Can someone quickly, just in case, explain to me the rules for what happens in a land k where the k has more land than the actual property, and vice versa? Much appreciated


Depends. There's an essay on this. Force specific performance as a buyer, get abatement of price for whatever isn't in the actual land that the K said was there.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:44 pm

Emma. wrote:
jmhendri wrote:
randomdandom wrote:
jmhendri wrote:Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.


didn't it involve a new regulation that required 5 foot offsets off the road??


Was it? I thought the word easement was in there.


It required offsets for the purpose of allowing hikers onto the land. Basically requiring an easement without saying so.



Would someone be willing to spell out the question and analysis? Asking bc easements might be on essays tomorrow and I don't remember this question well enough to follow the discussion here

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:44 pm

I've never read anything on CA Civ Pro. Should I review that tonight, or keep memorizing all my other outlines? What are the chances of business associations, partnerships, or agency?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:44 pm

Reinhardt wrote:What does "notice" consist of? The benefit runs without "notice" but I'm not sure how you'd even know you have a benefit to enforce if there's no notice.


Benefits of easements pass w/o notice.

Benefits of covenants need notice to run. Notice=Actual, constructive, record.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:44 pm

randomdandom wrote:
ben bernanke wrote:
randomdandom wrote:
ben bernanke wrote:Is notice required for the burden of an easement to run?


no, the burden of a covenant runs without notice.


Wait, what? I thought notice WAS required for covenants (intent, touch and concern, privities, notice)


For the burden to run:
Writing
Intent
Touch and Concern
Horizontal Privity
Notice

For the Benefit to run
Writing
Intent
Touch and Concern
Vertical Privity

Equitable Servitudes
Writing
intent
touch and concern
notice

I think I wrote it wrong before - i need to write out all three in that order to get it right. lol.


This is right, but dood's asking about easements, not covenants bro

User avatar
usuaggie
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby usuaggie » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:45 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
jmhendri wrote:Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.


According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.


It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.


What's the economic use if he isn't allowed to put anything there so hikers can walk on it

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:46 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
jmhendri wrote:Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.


According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.


It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.


Thats why I chose reg taking-- when I saw "All use" and the fact pattern I selected it without even reading the other answers (cause if I did I would have changed by answer to something else)

JDCA2012
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:47 pm

What was the answer to the attorney before the grand jury? I just remember answer "A" was something about not revealing client identity when it would link him to crime or something?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:47 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
jmhendri wrote:Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.


According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.


It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.


Thats why I chose reg taking-- when I saw "All use" and the fact pattern I selected it without even reading the other answers (cause if I did I would have changed by answer to something else)


I chose whatever answer had investment-backed expectations in it.

User avatar
funkyturds
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:32 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby funkyturds » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:47 pm

usuaggie wrote:
neilu789 wrote:What about that schmuck who had the deed in his hand and everyone told him to just write his name on it, but he refused and the grantor died?


I had no clue but I said A. Don't remember what it was. Not because he recorded, not because he was an agent, not because of a future interest turning to FSA. The other one lol



I put this too, but I think it's wrong. A was something about after-acquired title doctrine. According to wikipedia, it has nothing to do with the question.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby jmhendri » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:47 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
jmhendri wrote:Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.


According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.


It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.


A regulatory taking is the equivalent of a zoning law. Not allowing you to do something with your prop that would normally expect to be able to do. A physical taking is like when the gov puts a power line under your house (i.e. a forced easement).

randomdandom
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:48 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:This is right, but dood's asking about easements, not covenants bro


aren't easements real covenants or else equitable servitudes?!

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:48 pm

usuaggie wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
jmhendri wrote:Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.


According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.


It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.


What's the economic use if he isn't allowed to put anything there so hikers can walk on it


It is the Lake Tahoe case. They can still sit on their land even though they can't build on it.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:48 pm

usuaggie wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
jmhendri wrote:Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.


According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.


It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.


What's the economic use if he isn't allowed to put anything there so hikers can walk on it


You're thinking of the areas used for set-off as isolated property, not parts of the larger property.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:49 pm

randomdandom wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:This is right, but dood's asking about easements, not covenants bro


aren't easements real covenants or else equitable servitudes?!


Nope.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:49 pm

funkyturds wrote:
usuaggie wrote:
neilu789 wrote:What about that schmuck who had the deed in his hand and everyone told him to just write his name on it, but he refused and the grantor died?


I had no clue but I said A. Don't remember what it was. Not because he recorded, not because he was an agent, not because of a future interest turning to FSA. The other one lol



I put this too, but I think it's wrong. A was something about after-acquired title doctrine. According to wikipedia, it has nothing to do with the question.


I said recordation bc that presumes delivery. The other answers had nothing to do with the question? Not that recordation was all that great of an answer




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests