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 11:04 pm

randomdandom wrote:not for the statutory period? He actually farmed for the statutory period i believe. not sure. i feel like its mostly hypothesizing witthout the actual question in front of us.


You're right, it's 60/40. I put 100%. fma.

somethingdemure
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:28 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby somethingdemure » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:04 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
randomdandom wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
Emma. wrote:What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?


Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.


this. to AP property you don't actually occupy (i.e., the other 60 acres) you need color of title.

And fresh prince, how you gonna leave me hanging on the easement stuff?


Too tired. But yeah you need to read up on what easements are vs. covenants, how easements are created terminated and run with the land and don't run with the land. It's a separate doctrine (though not terribly different from covenants, so not too hard to get up to speed on).


I remember from prop class that all easements, covenants, and ESs are types of servitudes. So an easement is neither a covenant nor an equitable servitude. And he's def right that burden of easement doesn't run to BFP.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:05 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
This was my understanding of this as well. But FreshPrince seems pretty sure of it, so idk. For me, a gov't ordering you to clear your land to allow for pedestrians to walk across it all day, seemed like physical taking, but yeah, idk.


I actually wasn't aware of tbe distinction you were all discussing, but now that I read it you could be right. All I remember was that there was still economically viable use of the land because teh dude could still use his property aside from the set-offs and I thjought that was a hint. whatevs.


From my understanding from Con Law, physical taking = taking always. Reg taking = economically viable analysis

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 11:05 pm

AntiHuman wrote:EMERGENCY:

I know i've beaten this to death on this forum and I understand nobody can predict anything, but I currently have reviewed half of remedies and have not reviewed ANYTHING at all for civ pro, agency/partnership, and corporations...

With 4 hours remaining before bedtime, should I just put full force into remedies and pray that 3 subjects dont appear? I know that 1 more CA subject will appear....it could be a full blown remedies or trust/wills? Pray to the Lawd it is not agency/corp/civpro


Remedies is fast. It's a really easy review. Spend 1/2-an hr on that, not more than 20 min on cov pro, and spend the rest of the timeon ev, Ks, and Wills.

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 11:05 pm

GL everyone tomorrow

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 11:05 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
jmhendri wrote:
TaipeiMort wrote:See, that's where its confusing. Is an easement a physical occupation (like a power line), or a restriction on alienation (like an order not to build on part of your land)? I'm guessing the former-- I wish I would of actually read the answer choices.


90% sure its a physical taking.


Me too.


"Had California simply required the Nollans to make an easement across their beachfront available to the public on a permanent basis in order to increase public access to the beach ... we have no doubt there would have been a taking."

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825

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 11:05 pm

i think you can tack on in this situation


Tacking allowed where there is privity.

spartjdawg
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:28 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:05 pm

JDCA2012 wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
Emma. wrote:What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?


Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.


But did he get nothing since he only had AP'd it for 6 years of the 14 when the guy died and the daughter had the interest for the next 8?


I don't quite remember the question like this. I remember it being that the guy leased it for a year to let others farm. Either way, if there is privity, adverse possession tacks.

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 11:06 pm

JDCA2012 wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
Emma. wrote:What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?


Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.


But did he get nothing since he only had AP'd it for 6 years of the 14 when the guy died and the daughter had the interest for the next 8?


No Chicago consensus again.

If you only actually adverse possess portion of property, constructive AP gives title to whole. That was the right answer choice I am 90% sure (unlike most everything else).
Last edited by TaipeiMort on Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:06 pm

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 picked the investment-backed expectations because that's one of the factors for partial taking from that one case...

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 11:06 pm

Re: option K question

An option is a promise to hold an offer open for a fixed amount of time. Most courts hold that nominal consideration will make an option binding if the option is in writing. For example:

Sunshine Orange Groves offers to sell Squeeze Me Juice Company oranges for $5 a bushel. Sunshine agrees to keep the offer open for thirty days in exchange for Squeeze Me’s promise to pay $5. Sunshine’s promise to hold the offer open for the thirty days is an option and, because nominal consideration makes an option binding, the promise of $5 constitutes consideration. Please note that in order for the option to be binding, Sunshine’s promise must be in writing.


nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/contracts/Consideration/BargainPromisesMutualityRule.asp

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:07 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
JDCA2012 wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
Emma. wrote:What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?


Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.


But did he get nothing since he only had AP'd it for 6 years of the 14 when the guy died and the daughter had the interest for the next 8?


No Chicago consensus again.

If you only actually adverse possess portion of property, constructive AP gives title to whole. That was the right answer choice I am 90% sure (unlike most everything else).


only with color of title.

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 11:07 pm

Emma. wrote:
TaipeiMort wrote:
jmhendri wrote:
TaipeiMort wrote:See, that's where its confusing. Is an easement a physical occupation (like a power line), or a restriction on alienation (like an order not to build on part of your land)? I'm guessing the former-- I wish I would of actually read the answer choices.


90% sure its a physical taking.


Me too.


"Had California simply required the Nollans to make an easement across their beachfront available to the public on a permanent basis in order to increase public access to the beach ... we have no doubt there would have been a taking."

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825


yeah, this

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 11:07 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
JDCA2012 wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
Emma. wrote:What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?


Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.


But did he get nothing since he only had AP'd it for 6 years of the 14 when the guy died and the daughter had the interest for the next 8?


No Chicago consensus again.

If you only actually adverse possess portion of property, constructive AP gives title to whole. That was the right answer choice I am 90% sure (unlike most everything else).


Nah, someone else already had the answer to this. You only get the whole parcel if you are adversely possessing under color of title.

somethingdemure
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:28 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby somethingdemure » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:07 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
JDCA2012 wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
Emma. wrote:What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?


Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.


But did he get nothing since he only had AP'd it for 6 years of the 14 when the guy died and the daughter had the interest for the next 8?


No Chicago consensus again.

If you only actually adverse possess portion of property, constructive AP gives title to whole. That was the right answer choice I am 90% sure (unlike most everything else).

He had no color of title

Foosters Galore
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Foosters Galore » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:08 pm

Today enforced how woefully ignorant I am when it comes to mortgages and priority of interests. I'm fucked if that's a major part of a property essay.

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 11:08 pm

If you only actually adverse possess portion of property, constructive AP gives title to whole. That was the right answer choice I am 90% sure (unlike most everything else).


So dude got the whole thing? thats what i put.

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 11:08 pm

softey wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825


yeah, this



This is right, I'm wrong. Sorry peeps.

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 11:09 pm

/An option is a promise to hold an offer open for a fixed amount of time. Most courts hold that nominal consideration will make an option binding if the option is in writing.


Promise to pay is consideration.

her??
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby her?? » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:09 pm

a male human wrote:I picked the investment-backed expectations because that's one of the factors for partial taking from that one case...


there was another question about a guy who had a farm (probably) for a long time and did nothing but put up a big sign saying buildings will be developed here or something, and by the time he got around to doing anything, the zoning code changed to only allow for residential not commercial space... was it for that question? because i didn't think he had any expectations, he was another dumb lazy landowner

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 11:10 pm

her?? wrote:
a male human wrote:I picked the investment-backed expectations because that's one of the factors for partial taking from that one case...


there was another question about a guy who had a farm (probably) for a long time and did nothing but put up a big sign saying buildings will be developed here or something, and by the time he got around to doing anything, the zoning code changed to only allow for residential not commercial space... was is for that question? because i didn't think he had any expectations, he was another dumb lazy landowner

Her?? What, is she funny or something?

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 11:10 pm

her?? wrote:
a male human wrote:I picked the investment-backed expectations because that's one of the factors for partial taking from that one case...


there was another question about a guy who had a farm (probably) for a long time and did nothing but put up a big sign saying buildings will be developed here or something, and by the time he got around to doing anything, the zoning code changed to only allow for residential not commercial space... was it for that question? because i didn't think he had any expectations, he was another dumb lazy landowner


not vested; final answer

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 11:11 pm

her?? wrote:
a male human wrote:I picked the investment-backed expectations because that's one of the factors for partial taking from that one case...


there was another question about a guy who had a farm (probably) for a long time and did nothing but put up a big sign saying buildings will be developed here or something, and by the time he got around to doing anything, the zoning code changed to only allow for residential not commercial space... was it for that question? because i didn't think he had any expectations, he was another dumb lazy landowner


Yeah, his rights as a prior inconsistent use hadn't vested. He would have had to start construction. If there is one thing I know it is zoning and takings, I fucking aced Land Use last year.

her??
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby her?? » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:11 pm

usuaggie wrote:
her?? wrote:
a male human wrote:I picked the investment-backed expectations because that's one of the factors for partial taking from that one case...


there was another question about a guy who had a farm (probably) for a long time and did nothing but put up a big sign saying buildings will be developed here or something, and by the time he got around to doing anything, the zoning code changed to only allow for residential not commercial space... was is for that question? because i didn't think he had any expectations, he was another dumb lazy landowner

Her?? What, is she funny or something?


Well, let's hope so

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:11 pm

somethingdemure wrote:He had no color of title


This. The facts explicitly said "with full intent to AP" - thus, alarm bells off to no color of title




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armylaw101, Bing [Bot], electriklemon, Voynich and 6 guests