New York Bar Day 1 Thread Forum

[hanabana]

Didn't mention antilapse either... Said by representation because I used the same rule for intestacy - modern per stirpes. Felt badass about mentioning the 5 degrees of larceny in NY, but messed up degree number and said it was 2nd degree when it was supposed to be 4th - shouldn't have concluded with a degree, darn it! (And yes, I believe it is just rolling up all kinds of larceny charges in common law - larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses)

Know what worker's comp was but did not think to apply it (idiot!). Did not even think to use the diagnosis/latent injury thing - made up some stupid rule about discovery of inhaling inherently dangerous substance and said he was ok to sue. Made a list of what should have been on the essays, missed/misinterpreted/made up bullshit rule on more than 10. I am so done...

[stayway]

.

[BillyNoseBleed]

I totally messed up and said "intermitent child" instead of "pretermitted child"... What the heck was I thinking, what does intermitent child even mean?!

I called it an "intermitted child" soooo you are definitely not the only one!!!

Also, I increased my font to 16 pnt so I could read it, and never changed it back. Hope it doesn't print out like that for the bar examiners... lolz.

[MBZags]

Lulz, there is so much shit I missed apparently.

[kaiser]

Didn't mention antilapse either... Said by representation because I used the same rule for intestacy - modern per stirpes. Felt badass about mentioning the 5 degrees of larceny in NY, but messed up degree number and said it was 2nd degree when it was supposed to be 4th - shouldn't have concluded with a degree, darn it! (And yes, I believe it is just rolling up all kinds of larceny charges in common law - larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses)

Know what worker's comp was but did not think to apply it (idiot!). Did not even think to use the diagnosis/latent injury thing - made up some stupid rule about discovery of inhaling inherently dangerous substance and said he was ok to sue. Made a list of what should have been on the essays, missed/misinterpreted/made up bullshit rule on more than 10. I am so done...

It would have been 3rd degree, not 4th. 4th is up to 1,000. The larceny attempt on this was for 1,500, so its next degree up (3rd, with the 3,000 cap). So insignificant a point that it doesn't even matter though.

[kaiser]

lol same! don't worry

I did the same haha. Fuck?[/quote]
I honestly didn't know until just now reading this thread that anti-lapse meant you don't take per capita like usual. I thought it just saved the gift from failing but subsequent generations still take like they would have anyway, i.e. divide by number of issue at closest generation, repackage the remainder for dead folks, etc. WTF?[/quote]

Oh shit I did it per capita as if it were an intestacy problem. Didn't even think to consider that anti-lapse would keep the entirety of the 1/3 gift in each "branch". Ended up giving $20K to each grandkid. Oh well. At least those of us who did that get the anti-lapse points still, and thats the crux.[/quote]

Naw If antilapse gets applied the grandkids shares are different from not applying it.[/quote]

Not sure what you mean. If anti-lapse applies, the 50K that would have gone to each of A, B, and C all still go to each branch. So B's kids split his 50K, and C's kids split his 50K. If the gift is indeed "saved" by anti-lapse, it would have to just pass down that way, wouldn't it? Again, I did it wrong, and just combined the remaining 100K and divded it by 5 grandkids.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Didn't mention antilapse either... Said by representation because I used the same rule for intestacy - modern per stirpes. Felt badass about mentioning the 5 degrees of larceny in NY, but messed up degree number and said it was 2nd degree when it was supposed to be 4th - shouldn't have concluded with a degree, darn it! (And yes, I believe it is just rolling up all kinds of larceny charges in common law - larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses)

Know what worker's comp was but did not think to apply it (idiot!). Did not even think to use the diagnosis/latent injury thing - made up some stupid rule about discovery of inhaling inherently dangerous substance and said he was ok to sue. Made a list of what should have been on the essays, missed/misinterpreted/made up bullshit rule on more than 10. I am so done...

It would have been 3rd degree, not 4th. 4th is up to 1,000. The larceny attempt on this was for 1,500, so its next degree up (3rd, with the 3,000 cap). So insignificant a point that it doesn't even matter though.

Pretty sure 4th is $1000 and up, not up to $1000, 3rd is $3000 and up, not up to $3000, etc. Under $1k is petit.

[lionelhutz123]

Felt really good about the 3 AM essays. Really straightforward. Will was ok too save I messed up the joint bank account.

But man did I screw up torts. I think I gave good discussion of (1) motion to dismiss standard, (2) cross-claim issues, (3) negligence of the employer, (4) respondeat superior, (5) SoL and toxic substance rule, (6) design/warning defect. BUT I TOTALLY SPACED ON WC!!

What is the max I can get on that question?

[kaiser]

Didn't mention antilapse either... Said by representation because I used the same rule for intestacy - modern per stirpes. Felt badass about mentioning the 5 degrees of larceny in NY, but messed up degree number and said it was 2nd degree when it was supposed to be 4th - shouldn't have concluded with a degree, darn it! (And yes, I believe it is just rolling up all kinds of larceny charges in common law - larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses)

Know what worker's comp was but did not think to apply it (idiot!). Did not even think to use the diagnosis/latent injury thing - made up some stupid rule about discovery of inhaling inherently dangerous substance and said he was ok to sue. Made a list of what should have been on the essays, missed/misinterpreted/made up bullshit rule on more than 10. I am so done...

It would have been 3rd degree, not 4th. 4th is up to 1,000. The larceny attempt on this was for 1,500, so its next degree up (3rd, with the 3,000 cap). So insignificant a point that it doesn't even matter though.

Pretty sure 4th is $1000 and up, not up to $1000, 3rd is $3000 and up, not up to $3000, etc. Under $1k is petit.

Oh duh of course thats right. My bad. Well, another 1/3 point out the window lol

[stayway]

.

[stayway]

.

[tmbks]

.

[kaiser]

Oh and funny thing is, I remember one of the barbri model answers for a larceny issue not even dividing it up into five degrees....I forgot to today..sigh. however I did divide up assault and robbery.

was there a pretermitted child issue? I don't even remember anything close to that lol Thought it was about whether the illegimate kid can inherit from the will as one of the father's "children" by establishing paternity.

I almost didn't even realize it, but that child was born after the will was executed. Paternity wasn't an issue since he had sworn in a statement or something that the kId was his.

[lex8628]

Oh and funny thing is, I remember one of the barbri model answers for a larceny issue not even dividing it up into five degrees....I forgot to today..sigh. however I did divide up assault and robbery.

was there a pretermitted child issue? I don't even remember anything close to that lol Thought it was about whether the illegimate kid can inherit from the will as one of the father's "children" by establishing paternity.

Wanda was born after the will, not mentioned in the will, and not provided for by another settlement. Pretermitted child and she takes.

[BillyNoseBleed]

Oh and funny thing is, I remember one of the barbri model answers for a larceny issue not even dividing it up into five degrees....I forgot to today..sigh. however I did divide up assault and robbery.

was there a pretermitted child issue? I don't even remember anything close to that lol Thought it was about whether the illegimate kid can inherit from the will as one of the father's "children" by establishing paternity.

Yeah, but that bastard child was born after the will was executed... so Wanda was a pretermitted bastard child.

[sergris]

May be I am completely off base, but the Barbri book says that wills created after September 1 1992, the issue take per capita at each generation, wouldn't that mean they get 20k each?

[lionelhutz123]

Felt really good about the 3 AM essays. Really straightforward. Will was ok too save I messed up the joint bank account.

But man did I screw up torts. I think I gave good discussion of (1) motion to dismiss standard, (2) cross-claim issues, (3) negligence of the employer, (4) respondeat superior, (5) SoL and toxic substance rule, (6) design/warning defect. BUT I TOTALLY SPACED ON WC!!

What is the max I can get on that question?

[phonepro]

May be I am completely off base, but the Barbri book says that wills created after September 1 1992, the issue take per capita at each generation, wouldn't that mean they get 20k each?

Class gift made to specific people. Specific people die before T, usually their gift would fail and pass to residuary. But its saved by antilapse b/c they are issue leaving issue. B/c antilapse applies (not intestacy), you give each dead person share to their children. Bs two kids get 25K each; Cs three kids split the 50K.

[brassmonkey7]

.

[phonepro]

Oh and funny thing is, I remember one of the barbri model answers for a larceny issue not even dividing it up into five degrees....I forgot to today..sigh. however I did divide up assault and robbery.

was there a pretermitted child issue? I don't even remember anything close to that lol Thought it was about whether the illegimate kid can inherit from the will as one of the father's "children" by establishing paternity.

Yeah, but that bastard child was born after the will was executed... so Wanda was a pretermitted bastard child.

I didn't remember all the clear and convincing evidence details, whoops, but I think the deal with Wanda is that she was a pretermitted child but she still had to prove paternity to take as a pretermitted child. So I think there's points in there for mentioning pretermitted or paternity.

I can't believe they combined a bastard child with pretermitted shit. Luckily I realized she was one years old mid essay and wrote all of this. I killed the wills essay. I hope it makes up for the fact that I wrote almost nothing regarding the property issue - literally.

[brassmonkey7]

.

[tmbks]

.

[BillyNoseBleed]

Oh and funny thing is, I remember one of the barbri model answers for a larceny issue not even dividing it up into five degrees....I forgot to today..sigh. however I did divide up assault and robbery.

was there a pretermitted child issue? I don't even remember anything close to that lol Thought it was about whether the illegimate kid can inherit from the will as one of the father's "children" by establishing paternity.

Yeah, but that bastard child was born after the will was executed... so Wanda was a pretermitted bastard child.

I didn't remember all the clear and convincing evidence details, whoops, but I think the deal with Wanda is that she was a pretermitted child but she still had to prove paternity to take as a pretermitted child. So I think there's points in there for mentioning pretermitted or paternity.

I also wrote something about exhuming a body to prove paternity.....points?

[kaiser]

Oh and funny thing is, I remember one of the barbri model answers for a larceny issue not even dividing it up into five degrees....I forgot to today..sigh. however I did divide up assault and robbery.

was there a pretermitted child issue? I don't even remember anything close to that lol Thought it was about whether the illegimate kid can inherit from the will as one of the father's "children" by establishing paternity.

Yeah, but that bastard child was born after the will was executed... so Wanda was a pretermitted bastard child.

I didn't remember all the clear and convincing evidence details, whoops, but I think the deal with Wanda is that she was a pretermitted child but she still had to prove paternity to take as a pretermitted child. So I think there's points in there for mentioning pretermitted or paternity.

I don't think that paternity was at issue. Tom swore in a statement or something that he was the father. Paternity is only an issue when a guy wants to assert some kind of parental right (or wants to avoid some kind of parental obligation). Plus, it would have been super odd to see paternity/domestic relations in two separate essays (since essay 1 had paternity as an issue in whether the father could deny consent to the adoption).

[tmbks]

I didn't remember all the clear and convincing evidence details, whoops, but I think the deal with Wanda is that she was a pretermitted child but she still had to prove paternity to take as a pretermitted child. So I think there's points in there for mentioning pretermitted or paternity.[/quote]

I don't think that paternity was at issue. Tom swore in a statement or something that he was the father. Plus, it would have been super odd to see paternity/domestic relations in two separate essays (since essay 1 had paternity as an issue in whether the father could deny consent to the adoption).[/quote]

I think pretermitted is the main issue and paternity is a sub-issue. Wanda would not have had any right to inheritance if paternity is not established. Paternity can be established even after the death of father if clear and convincing evidence... DNA or signed affidavit or some shit. But yea, obviously the main issue was pretermitted.