1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Swimp
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:32 am

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Swimp » Sun Dec 15, 2013 1:31 pm

arklaw13 wrote:
North wrote:Anybody have the BLL for Primary Assumption of Risk and Secondary Assumption of Risk from Torts?


Our prof taught us the rule from Meistrich, which basically eliminates real assumption of risk.

Primary: defendant had no duty
Secondary: plaintiff was contributorily negligent

Almost all modern assumption of risk doctrine has followed this approach as courts have become more accepting of paternalistic tort law.


This is pretty much how I learned it, plus the fact that secondary assumption of risk has been subsumed by the spread of the comparative negligence standard in most jurisdictions .

User avatar
shifty_eyed
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby shifty_eyed » Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:07 pm

let's talk about the summary judgment trilogy

what do i need to know about the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion when the moving party is the plaintiff? Defendant?

TIA

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5691
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Easy-E » Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:09 pm

RAP question. O conveys to A for life, then to A's first child and his/her heirs (A has no children at time of conveyance)

So A has a life estate, and A's children have a continent remainder in fee. I'm trying to get my head around why the RAP doesn't affect A's children. Is it because they don't exist at the time of conveyance, thus we can kill off A, and an interest in the children clearly fails within 21 years?

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Mal Reynolds » Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:26 pm

emarxnj wrote:RAP question. O conveys to A for life, then to A's first child and his/her heirs (A has no children at time of conveyance)

So A has a life estate, and A's children have a continent remainder in fee. I'm trying to get my head around why the RAP doesn't affect A's children. Is it because they don't exist at the time of conveyance, thus we can kill off A, and an interest in the children clearly fails within 21 years?


I think you're forgetting that the RAP allows for two possibilities for a future interest to be valid. It has to either 1. vest, or 2. forever fail to vest. In the case of A's children, that seems fine. Even if O was conveyed to all of A's children, that would still be a valid clause according to the RAP. The two possibilities below would be the same in either case.

Since the interest is limited only to A's first child, it makes it a closed and certain class. So there are only two possibilities.

1. A has no children. Therefore A's non-existent child won't have any heirs. So the interest will forever fail to vest and revert back to O.

2. If A has children, then the interest will vest in his first born. Since it's logically impossible for A to have a second born before his first born, or for him to have children and never have a first born, he will always be a valid measuring life until his first child comes into existence. The interest will vest at the time of A's death and the RAP won't apply since A was a measuring life, so we don't need to count 21 years past A's death.

It's uncertain whether A's grandchildren from his firstborn son will have a vested interest since A could die, then since A's firstborn wasn't a measuring life at the time of the drafting of the will, he could have another heir 21 years after any valid life in being/measuring life is alive.

HTH, sorry if I was unclear.

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Mal Reynolds » Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:38 pm

shifty_eyed wrote:let's talk about the summary judgment trilogy

what do i need to know about the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion when the moving party is the plaintiff? Defendant?

TIA


The trilogy's main headline is to grant SJ more often to dispense with lawsuits that don't have sufficient proof.

Celotex provides for framework for burden of production, which is what SJ evaluates. The jury always evaluates burden of persuasion, unless it's a bench trial.

If the movant for SJ has the burden of production, then it has to produce clear and convincing (that might not be the right terminology) evidence that the jury could only find for the moving party. If the nonmoving for SJ has the burden of production, then all that it has to do, according to Celotex, is to affirmatively show in the record that there isn't any dispute of material fact-in other words that the opposing party hasn't met it's burden of production. All this has to be is more than a conclusory statement about the evidence.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby established that SJ and JMOL are the same standard to grant or deny, but the difference is what type of evidence has been furnished. SJ evidence is mostly paper/video/affidavits, since it hasn't been presented live at trial. JMOL has been presented live at trial. That sometimes gives judges the incentive to not grant SJ and wait to grant JMOL since the evidence could play out differently at trial. However this could cut the other way since trial allows for cross-examination and the discrediting of witnesses. Therefore a plausible case could be that the judge denies SJ, then also denies JMOL since he could rule the jury has a legally sufficient basis for deciding the case either way, due to witness credibility issues. So it's not really clear exactly the difference between JMOL and SJ really should be and how it plays out at trial.

Matsushita established that evidence for the party with the burden of production has to rise above mere possibility, tending to exclude alternative explanations. So it was a precursor to Twiqbal in a few ways.

HTH, basically courts will have a greater incentive to grant SJ after the trilogy.

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5691
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Easy-E » Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:51 pm

Mal Reynolds wrote:
emarxnj wrote:RAP question. O conveys to A for life, then to A's first child and his/her heirs (A has no children at time of conveyance)

So A has a life estate, and A's children have a continent remainder in fee. I'm trying to get my head around why the RAP doesn't affect A's children. Is it because they don't exist at the time of conveyance, thus we can kill off A, and an interest in the children clearly fails within 21 years?


I think you're forgetting that the RAP allows for two possibilities for a future interest to be valid. It has to either 1. vest, or 2. forever fail to vest. In the case of A's children, that seems fine. Even if O was conveyed to all of A's children, that would still be a valid clause according to the RAP. The two possibilities below would be the same in either case.

Since the interest is limited only to A's first child, it makes it a closed and certain class. So there are only two possibilities.

1. A has no children. Therefore A's non-existent child won't have any heirs. So the interest will forever fail to vest and revert back to O.

2. If A has children, then the interest will vest in his first born. Since it's logically impossible for A to have a second born before his first born, or for him to have children and never have a first born, he will always be a valid measuring life until his first child comes into existence. The interest will vest at the time of A's death and the RAP won't apply since A was a measuring life, so we don't need to count 21 years past A's death.

It's uncertain whether A's grandchildren from his firstborn son will have a vested interest since A could die, then since A's firstborn wasn't a measuring life at the time of the drafting of the will, he could have another heir 21 years after any valid life in being/measuring life is alive.

HTH, sorry if I was unclear.


No, that's very clear. Thanks man. So basically it says "yeah this is valid because it is never going to happen", for this case at least? Whats the actual ramifications of this? Sure, your interest is still valid, it just will never ever vest? Though I had this down, but I'm still getting throw for a loop. Here's another question...


O conveys to A for life, then to B and her heirs, but if B uses the property for anything but farming, to C and his heirs

A - life estate
B- vested remainder in fee subject to executory limitation
C - Shifting executory interest in fee simple

So lets say A dies, B has present possessory estate, does B now have a fee simple subject to condition subsequent? I keep getting mixed up and wanting to say B's future interest is a "vested remainder subject to condition subsequent" but I guess that isn't a thing until its presently possessed?

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Mal Reynolds » Sun Dec 15, 2013 7:19 pm

Mal Reynolds wrote:
shifty_eyed wrote:let's talk about the summary judgment trilogy

what do i need to know about the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion when the moving party is the plaintiff? Defendant?

TIA


The trilogy's main headline is to grant SJ more often to dispense with lawsuits that don't have sufficient proof.

Celotex provides for framework for burden of production, which is what SJ evaluates. The jury always evaluates burden of persuasion, unless it's a bench trial.

If the movant for SJ has the burden of production, then it has to produce clear and convincing (that might not be the right terminology) evidence that the jury could only find for the moving party. If the nonmoving for SJ has the burden of production, then all that it has to do, according to Celotex, is to affirmatively show in the record that there isn't any dispute of material fact-in other words that the opposing party hasn't met it's burden of production. All this has to be is more than a conclusory statement about the evidence.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby established that SJ and JMOL are the same standard to grant or deny, but the difference is what type of evidence has been furnished. SJ evidence is mostly paper/video/affidavits, since it hasn't been presented live at trial. JMOL has been presented live at trial. That sometimes gives judges the incentive to not grant SJ and wait to grant JMOL since the evidence could play out differently at trial. However this could cut the other way since trial allows for cross-examination and the discrediting of witnesses. Therefore a plausible case could be that the judge denies SJ, then also denies JMOL since he could rule the jury has a legally sufficient basis for deciding the case either way, due to witness credibility issues. So it's not really clear exactly the difference between JMOL and SJ really should be and how it plays out at trial.

Matsushita established that evidence for the party with the burden of production has to rise above mere possibility, tending to exclude alternative explanations. So it was a precursor to Twiqbal in a few ways.

HTH, basically courts will have a greater incentive to grant SJ after the trilogy.


Sorry, this is kind of wrong, in re: burden of persuasion. Burden of persuasion always remains with the moving party, but after the moving party has met it's burden of production when moving for SJ the opposing party can dispute that. In either case above, the movant can meet its burden of production as to whether there is a material dispute, then the other party will have a chance to dispute that argument. The judge should only rule in favor of the SJ if there is no adequate evidentiary basis for the jury decide either way.

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5691
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Easy-E » Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:54 pm

Anyone care to enlighten me on title theory vs. lien theory?

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Mal Reynolds » Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:17 pm

emarxnj wrote:No, that's very clear. Thanks man. So basically it says "yeah this is valid because it is never going to happen", for this case at least? Whats the actual ramifications of this? Sure, your interest is still valid, it just will never ever vest? Though I had this down, but I'm still getting throw for a loop.


We don't have a property test until next quarter so that future interests question is a little too detailed for my memory.

But I think you're still a little confused about what the RAP tests. The RAP only strikes interests that logically have a chance to vest after 21 years of a measuring live's death. A future interest is valid if it never vests or if it vests 21 years before a measuring life's death. So it's not that the court determines "this will never happen," but that logically there is no uncertainty about when an interest MIGHT vest. The more uncertainty the worse it is for the future interest. Think about this metaphor:

Say you work for a dynamite company as an clean up guy. It would be smart to tell your boss that you will only go down to clean up after a dynamite accident if either 1. the dynamite blows up in the next twenty one minutes, or 2. the dynamite will never blow up. If there is a chance the dynamite will blow up in 15 minutes, or an hour or a day from now, that could really fuck with your occupational safety.

Same logic applies for the RAP. The courts don't want the uncertainty about the future interest vesting for a long time after the death of the testator, for fear of the dead hand.

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5691
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Easy-E » Mon Dec 16, 2013 1:49 pm

Mal Reynolds wrote:
emarxnj wrote:No, that's very clear. Thanks man. So basically it says "yeah this is valid because it is never going to happen", for this case at least? Whats the actual ramifications of this? Sure, your interest is still valid, it just will never ever vest? Though I had this down, but I'm still getting throw for a loop.


We don't have a property test until next quarter so that future interests question is a little too detailed for my memory.

But I think you're still a little confused about what the RAP tests. The RAP only strikes interests that logically have a chance to vest after 21 years of a measuring live's death. A future interest is valid if it never vests or if it vests 21 years before a measuring life's death. So it's not that the court determines "this will never happen," but that logically there is no uncertainty about when an interest MIGHT vest. The more uncertainty the worse it is for the future interest. Think about this metaphor:

Say you work for a dynamite company as an clean up guy. It would be smart to tell your boss that you will only go down to clean up after a dynamite accident if either 1. the dynamite blows up in the next twenty one minutes, or 2. the dynamite will never blow up. If there is a chance the dynamite will blow up in 15 minutes, or an hour or a day from now, that could really fuck with your occupational safety.

Same logic applies for the RAP. The courts don't want the uncertainty about the future interest vesting for a long time after the death of the testator, for fear of the dead hand.


I was cooked yesterday, looks like I was mixing up the purpose of the RAP and the way you test it ("kill off those alive at time of conveyance"). Thanks for clearing it up, I think I get it now. Gonna try and drill it a bit more today though.

More property...


"Tacking" of owners. Let's say A owns Blackacre, and grants B a life estate. C begins adversely possessing Blackacre. Ten years go by and B dies. If the statutory period is 20 years, does C now need to adversely occupy Blackacre for only 10 more years, or a full 20 years under A? I was under the impression only 10 more years are needed, because there is privity between A and B, but one of my supplements indicates otherwise.

User avatar
2807
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:23 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby 2807 » Mon Dec 16, 2013 5:56 pm

emarxnj wrote:Anyone care to enlighten me on title theory vs. lien theory?


This is simple. Don't over think it.


Title Theory: When the actual title of the property is transferred to the other (likely a lender) party until the loan is paid off. Then, title is transferred back. It is like collateral for the loan.

Lien Theory: (As in CA) The lender merely has a lien against the property that he can then foreclose on (or take action on) if the loan is not paid. Still is like collateral, but is not an actual title change.

The issue comes up when 1 Joint Tenant mortgages his portion of the property. If it is a Title JX then there is a break of the JT, and a TIC analysis.

With a Lein JX you do not have the that prob.

User avatar
North
Posts: 4041
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby North » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:07 pm

TY guys for the discussion on Assumption of Risk. Really helped today.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby sinfiery » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:16 pm

What happens in criminal if you touch someone on the shoulder (assault), they happen to be a hemophiliac, they bleed out and die.

There is the taking the victim as you see them doctrine but whats the mens rea here? Negligence? Recklessness? Do you assume the person had knowledge of the disease?

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5691
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Easy-E » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:23 pm

2807 wrote:
emarxnj wrote:Anyone care to enlighten me on title theory vs. lien theory?


This is simple. Don't over think it.


Title Theory: When the actual title of the property is transferred to the other (likely a lender) party until the loan is paid off. Then, title is transferred back. It is like collateral for the loan.

Lien Theory: (As in CA) The lender merely has a lien against the property that he can then foreclose on (or take action on) if the loan is not paid. Still is like collateral, but is not an actual title change.

The issue comes up when 1 Joint Tenant mortgages his portion of the property. If it is a Title JX then there is a break of the JT, and a TIC analysis.

With a Lein JX you do not have the that prob.


Oh that's easy enough. Thanks.


I think this qualifies for this thread. My professor said to ignore real covenants for the exam, so I guess as far as servitudes go we're only responsible for easements (affirmative/negative) and equitable servitudes. I've been stressing myself out over horizontal/vertical privity, "touching the land", burden/benefit...is this stuff only important for understanding real covenants? Or am I missing something?

User avatar
tony2167
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:04 am

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby tony2167 » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:33 pm

Question for my own sanity since this came up on my torts exam today:

If a person throws a barstool at someone else and in evading the stool that person knocks over a candle and sets alight the window curtains, can the stool-thrower be held liable for trespass to chattels/conversion for the damage to the curtains by way of transferred intent? The person whom the stool was thrown at was the owner of the premises.

I answered in the affirmative, saying that because he intended a battery he is liable for any tortious act that follows.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Br3v » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:36 pm

North wrote:TY guys for the discussion on Assumption of Risk. Really helped today.


1 2 go bro

User avatar
MCFC
Posts: 8505
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby MCFC » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:08 pm

Indulge a very dumb question please. I feel like I have a decent grasp on when the UCC default terms govern, but what exactly are the UCC default terms? Warranties are one, right?

Swimp
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:32 am

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Swimp » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:15 pm

MCFC wrote:Indulge a very dumb question please. I feel like I have a decent grasp on when the UCC default terms govern, but what exactly are the UCC default terms? Warranties are one, right?


Do you have to know them? My professor just wanted us to acknowledge when default rules would be incorporated, but didn't care whether we knew specifically what they'd be.

User avatar
shifty_eyed
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:09 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby shifty_eyed » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:15 pm

tony2167 wrote:Question for my own sanity since this came up on my torts exam today:

If a person throws a barstool at someone else and in evading the stool that person knocks over a candle and sets alight the window curtains, can the stool-thrower be held liable for trespass to chattels/conversion for the damage to the curtains by way of transferred intent? The person whom the stool was thrown at was the owner of the premises.

I answered in the affirmative, saying that because he intended a battery he is liable for any tortious act that follows.

I think you are right except it's because intentional tortfeasors are liable for all the harm that occurs as a direct consequence. There was not tortious act that followed, the evasion was self-defense.

User avatar
MCFC
Posts: 8505
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby MCFC » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:21 pm

Swimp wrote:
MCFC wrote:Indulge a very dumb question please. I feel like I have a decent grasp on when the UCC default terms govern, but what exactly are the UCC default terms? Warranties are one, right?


Do you have to know them? My professor just wanted us to acknowledge when default rules would be incorporated, but didn't care whether we knew specifically what they'd be.


I'd say the guidance in general has been fairly unclear. For now, my plan is just to do what you suggest, just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing some UCC provision that said, here are the default rules, or something.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Br3v » Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:03 pm

MCFC wrote:
Swimp wrote:
MCFC wrote:Indulge a very dumb question please. I feel like I have a decent grasp on when the UCC default terms govern, but what exactly are the UCC default terms? Warranties are one, right?


Do you have to know them? My professor just wanted us to acknowledge when default rules would be incorporated, but didn't care whether we knew specifically what they'd be.


I'd say the guidance in general has been fairly unclear. For now, my plan is just to do what you suggest, just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing some UCC provision that said, here are the default rules, or something.


Only ones I can remember are warranties. Maybe 2-305 open price term would be one too

User avatar
Jsa725
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:20 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Jsa725 » Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:44 pm

.
Last edited by Jsa725 on Sun Oct 26, 2014 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

iworkforlsac
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:35 am

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby iworkforlsac » Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:45 pm

Guys, urgent contracts question:

my prof told us that in case of a material breach, sometimes u have to wait for a reasonable period after cancelling the K to sue the breacher. What's the diff. between situations when u can cancel the K sue right away, and situations where u have to wait for a reasonable time after cancelling the K?

Also, this brings me to another confusion: does it matter that a party cancels the K before suing? Wouldn't the bringing of suit even w/o really cancelling the K imply that they are cancelling the K anyway?

User avatar
2807
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:23 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby 2807 » Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:23 am

iworkforlsac wrote:Guys, urgent contracts question:

my prof told us that in case of a material breach, sometimes u have to wait for a reasonable period after cancelling the K to sue the breacher. What's the diff. between situations when u can cancel the K sue right away, and situations where u have to wait for a reasonable time after cancelling the K?

Also, this brings me to another confusion: does it matter that a party cancels the K before suing? Wouldn't the bringing of suit even w/o really cancelling the K imply that they are cancelling the K anyway?


That is odd. It would be fact specific and you would likely know it when you see it.
The issue you are dealing with is "minor" breach v. "material" breach. That "reasonable time" issue may come into an analysis on material v minor and the non-breacher's duty.

If you argue material, then the non-breacher is released from his obligations. Period.
If you argue minor, then the non-breacher can sue for the damages caused, but must still continue with his K obligations. Likely need to address both...

No, bringing a suit on a breach issue does not necessarily mean the K is "cancelled." Also, I am not comfortable with you saying "canceling" the K. It is not a term we used. Better to say, the breach was a material breach and therefore the non-breacher is relieved of his K duties. (the K is cancelled by default because one party breached, and the other no longer has to act). There is not going to be a formal "cancel" ceremony.

There can still be suits for damages prior to the breach, and accompanying breach acts by both parties. It is not as if a breach relieves all parties retroactively too. The breacher will argue "minor" and sue the other. The non-breacher will argue "material" go for damages, and relief of duty.

HTH

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5691
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Easy-E » Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:42 am

Sup late night property people, adverse possession. Obviously there needs to be an actual entry, but if you are also constructively possessing an additional part of the land, can that fall under your adverse possession claim? Or is it only what you actually posses. Not talking about color of title here, I know the deal with that. Thanks bros.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: peger, wg6524 and 5 guests