kalvano wrote:Sweet mother of God, I am so far behind.
Want the handouts to help you catch back up, brehsef?
kalvano wrote:Sweet mother of God, I am so far behind.
Completely agree on both accounts. I'm not sure if you've gotten the question about the police investigation & the witness describing the events to the cop, but unless the cop is Flash and the investigation happens seconds, or maybe one minute after the actual accident, ain't no way that shit is coming in under PSI. As far as 403 goes, I think besides a prior criminal act question (reverse 403 etc), an answer that suggests evidence should be excluded under 403 will rarely be correct. Based on the three quizzes i've done, questions containing that answer choice seem to be testing more on relevancy which is an extremely easy test to satisfy.BarbellDreams wrote:They really shouldn't test 403 at all because prejudicial nature outweighing probative value of a piece of evidence is entirely subjective. Furthermore, I thoroughly believe that Themis MBE questions don't know that 803(1) is a statement made at or near the time of an event.dsclaw wrote:I have taken two evidence classes in law school and am at the average percentage. I have thoroughly disagreed with some of the answer though.
Side note, the guy for secured transactions is absolutely boring as hell
Bikeflip wrote:kalvano wrote:Sweet mother of God, I am so far behind.
Want the handouts to help you catch back up, brehsef?
LOL wow dude... I guess just hammer all the MBE subjects, and learn New York family law, wills/trusts, corporations and CPLR.mvp wrote:Hey all, I'm planning on starting the NY/NJ course tomorrow. I know I'm starting extremely late, and I'm a little nervous about getting everything done in time. Any suggestions on the best way to go about it (e.g. things I could/should skip or skim, things I should make sure to focus on)?
Want to continue reading?
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
Same here. That's because of all the shit Themis puts on our to-do lists everyday, and it just compounds if I can't finish all the tasks on a given day.kalvano wrote:Bikeflip wrote:kalvano wrote:Sweet mother of God, I am so far behind.
Want the handouts to help you catch back up, brehsef?
No, but thanks. I think I am only about 4 days behind, but it feels like 4 weeks.
Watch the lectures, fill out the handouts and do the practice questions. It's probably too late to read the outlines if you want to get caught up now.mvp wrote:Hey all, I'm planning on starting the NY/NJ course tomorrow. I know I'm starting extremely late, and I'm a little nervous about getting everything done in time. Any suggestions on the best way to go about it (e.g. things I could/should skip or skim, things I should make sure to focus on)?
That's really weird. I'd contact them and inquire? I'm scheduled to finish on the 27th, but I usually have 5-6 things to do everyday so that's assuming I can stay on track from now until then. I know lots of people that took Themis last summer and this past February for the bar exam, and none of them passed 80% completed. I don't know how far behind they were or whatnot though.dsclaw wrote:Anyone notice that the schedule has changed. I was only supposed to have 3 things for today but now I have 5. In addition, I was supposed to end on the 26th and now its saying I am supposed to finish on the 29th? It seems Themis is adding more tasks that way I do not get to 75% ? Scam?
I am at 61% as of now, but a job I took starts Jul 15 which will seriously impair my ability to study so I am trying to beast through it until then.as stars burn wrote:That's really weird. I'd contact them and inquire? I'm scheduled to finish on the 27th, but I usually have 5-6 things to do everyday so that's assuming I can stay on track from now until then. I know lots of people that took Themis last summer and this past February for the bar exam, and none of them passed 80% completed. I don't know how far behind they were or whatnot though.dsclaw wrote:Anyone notice that the schedule has changed. I was only supposed to have 3 things for today but now I have 5. In addition, I was supposed to end on the 26th and now its saying I am supposed to finish on the 29th? It seems Themis is adding more tasks that way I do not get to 75% ? Scam?
It is isn't necessary a tenancy be entirety. However, that's the only way that the other grantee can prevail. A joint tenant or co-tenant is freely able to alienate their interest in the tenancy, except in a tenancy by entirety (without permission of the other spouse).dsclaw wrote:Spoiler: PROPERTY MBE QUESTION
Lawnacre was conveyed to two grantees by a deed that, in the jurisdiction in which Lawnacre is situated, created a co-tenancy in equal shares and with the right of survivorship. The jurisdiction has no statute directly applicable to any of the problems posed. One grantee, by deed, conveyed "my undivided one-half interest in Lawnacre" to her friend. That grantee has since died.
In an appropriate action between the friend and the other grantee in which title to Lawnacre is at issue, the other grantee will
A. prevail, because he is the sole owner of Lawnacre.
B. prevail if, but only if, the co-tenancy created in the two grantees was a tenancy by the entirety.
C. not prevail if he had knowledge of the conveyance prior to the grantee's death.
D. not prevail, because the friend and the other grantee own Lawnacre as tenants in common.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. Tenancy by the entirety is a joint tenancy between married persons with a right of survivorship. Because neither party in a tenancy by the entirety can alienate the property without the consent of the other, answer choice B provides the truest statement. Answer choice A is incorrect because even if the two grantees had held the property as a joint tenancy, the second grantee would then own the property with the friend as tenants in common. Answer choice C is incorrect because knowledge of a conveyance is not a requirement in severing a co-tenancy. Answer choice D would be correct if the two grantees had owned Lawnacre as a joint tenancy; however, answer choice B is the better answer.
Can anyone explain to me how this creates a tenancy by the entirety and not a joint tenancy? I do not see any indication that the parties are married.
Register now!
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
However, the option choice D indicates she wont prevail and gives an answer which also would be correct if it was not a tenancy by the entirety. So the key to the question is finding a tenancy by the entirety. I selected D.Kretzy wrote:It is isn't necessary a tenancy be entirety. However, that's the only way that the other grantee can prevail. A joint tenant or co-tenant is freely able to alienate their interest in the tenancy, except in a tenancy by entirety (without permission of the other spouse).dsclaw wrote:Spoiler: PROPERTY MBE QUESTION
Lawnacre was conveyed to two grantees by a deed that, in the jurisdiction in which Lawnacre is situated, created a co-tenancy in equal shares and with the right of survivorship. The jurisdiction has no statute directly applicable to any of the problems posed. One grantee, by deed, conveyed "my undivided one-half interest in Lawnacre" to her friend. That grantee has since died.
In an appropriate action between the friend and the other grantee in which title to Lawnacre is at issue, the other grantee will
A. prevail, because he is the sole owner of Lawnacre.
B. prevail if, but only if, the co-tenancy created in the two grantees was a tenancy by the entirety.
C. not prevail if he had knowledge of the conveyance prior to the grantee's death.
D. not prevail, because the friend and the other grantee own Lawnacre as tenants in common.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. Tenancy by the entirety is a joint tenancy between married persons with a right of survivorship. Because neither party in a tenancy by the entirety can alienate the property without the consent of the other, answer choice B provides the truest statement. Answer choice A is incorrect because even if the two grantees had held the property as a joint tenancy, the second grantee would then own the property with the friend as tenants in common. Answer choice C is incorrect because knowledge of a conveyance is not a requirement in severing a co-tenancy. Answer choice D would be correct if the two grantees had owned Lawnacre as a joint tenancy; however, answer choice B is the better answer.
Can anyone explain to me how this creates a tenancy by the entirety and not a joint tenancy? I do not see any indication that the parties are married.
If the grantees were married, and in a tenancy by entirety, the other grantee could prevail, because grantee 1 would not have been able to convey their interest to Friend.
I got off Facebook too, and the one thing I am doing this entire month is going to dinner with my sister. Some days I don't even go outside until evening and going to the grocery store is a huge adventure. Agreed. This is a totally isolating experience. And July hasn't even started.as stars burn wrote:Just out of curiosity, does anyone feel really lonely? I mean, I'm married (non-law), but I'm so used to being around a lot of people most of the time that this is killing me. I also got off Facebook and Instagram a week ago so now I feel really disconnected. I haven't really heard from anyone, but I assume all my friends know I'm stressed right now. I've been studying 10-ish hour days since a couple weeks ago 7 days a week because I fell behind when my husband and I were trying to find a new apartment, so needless to say, I feel like I have no free time now other than going to the gym or going for a run. This is so lame.
I think that's the reason for the "if but only if" language. D is true if the grantees weren't married. But we don't know whether or not they are, so there are facts that, if true, would allow the other grantee to prevail. So B is a better answer than D, since D says that grantee outright won't prevail when there is a (albeit limited) circumstance in which s/he can.dsclaw wrote:However, the option choice D indicates she wont prevail and gives an answer which also would be correct if it was not a tenancy by the entirety. So the key to the question is finding a tenancy by the entirety. I selected D.Kretzy wrote:It is isn't necessary a tenancy be entirety. However, that's the only way that the other grantee can prevail. A joint tenant or co-tenant is freely able to alienate their interest in the tenancy, except in a tenancy by entirety (without permission of the other spouse).dsclaw wrote:Spoiler: PROPERTY MBE QUESTION
Lawnacre was conveyed to two grantees by a deed that, in the jurisdiction in which Lawnacre is situated, created a co-tenancy in equal shares and with the right of survivorship. The jurisdiction has no statute directly applicable to any of the problems posed. One grantee, by deed, conveyed "my undivided one-half interest in Lawnacre" to her friend. That grantee has since died.
In an appropriate action between the friend and the other grantee in which title to Lawnacre is at issue, the other grantee will
A. prevail, because he is the sole owner of Lawnacre.
B. prevail if, but only if, the co-tenancy created in the two grantees was a tenancy by the entirety.
C. not prevail if he had knowledge of the conveyance prior to the grantee's death.
D. not prevail, because the friend and the other grantee own Lawnacre as tenants in common.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. Tenancy by the entirety is a joint tenancy between married persons with a right of survivorship. Because neither party in a tenancy by the entirety can alienate the property without the consent of the other, answer choice B provides the truest statement. Answer choice A is incorrect because even if the two grantees had held the property as a joint tenancy, the second grantee would then own the property with the friend as tenants in common. Answer choice C is incorrect because knowledge of a conveyance is not a requirement in severing a co-tenancy. Answer choice D would be correct if the two grantees had owned Lawnacre as a joint tenancy; however, answer choice B is the better answer.
Can anyone explain to me how this creates a tenancy by the entirety and not a joint tenancy? I do not see any indication that the parties are married.
If the grantees were married, and in a tenancy by entirety, the other grantee could prevail, because grantee 1 would not have been able to convey their interest to Friend.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
as stars burn wrote:Just out of curiosity, does anyone feel really lonely? I mean, I'm married (non-law), but I'm so used to being around a lot of people most of the time that this is killing me. I also got off Facebook and Instagram a week ago so now I feel really disconnected. I haven't really heard from anyone, but I assume all my friends know I'm stressed right now. I've been studying 10-ish hour days since a couple weeks ago 7 days a week because I fell behind when my husband and I were trying to find a new apartment, so needless to say, I feel like I have no free time now other than going to the gym or going for a run. This is so lame.
Thank you for pointing out the, if but only if, language. That does make it a better answer. Wish I had noticed that would have gotten it write. God damn, the property questions take me so long to read that I rush through the shorter ones. I am at 1.9 mins per question.Kretzy wrote:I think that's the reason for the "if but only if" language. D is true if the grantees weren't married. But we don't know whether or not they are, so there are facts that, if true, would allow the other grantee to prevail. So B is a better answer than D, since D says that grantee outright won't prevail when there is a (albeit limited) circumstance in which s/he can.dsclaw wrote:However, the option choice D indicates she wont prevail and gives an answer which also would be correct if it was not a tenancy by the entirety. So the key to the question is finding a tenancy by the entirety. I selected D.Kretzy wrote:It is isn't necessary a tenancy be entirety. However, that's the only way that the other grantee can prevail. A joint tenant or co-tenant is freely able to alienate their interest in the tenancy, except in a tenancy by entirety (without permission of the other spouse).dsclaw wrote:Spoiler: PROPERTY MBE QUESTION
Lawnacre was conveyed to two grantees by a deed that, in the jurisdiction in which Lawnacre is situated, created a co-tenancy in equal shares and with the right of survivorship. The jurisdiction has no statute directly applicable to any of the problems posed. One grantee, by deed, conveyed "my undivided one-half interest in Lawnacre" to her friend. That grantee has since died.
In an appropriate action between the friend and the other grantee in which title to Lawnacre is at issue, the other grantee will
A. prevail, because he is the sole owner of Lawnacre.
B. prevail if, but only if, the co-tenancy created in the two grantees was a tenancy by the entirety.
C. not prevail if he had knowledge of the conveyance prior to the grantee's death.
D. not prevail, because the friend and the other grantee own Lawnacre as tenants in common.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. Tenancy by the entirety is a joint tenancy between married persons with a right of survivorship. Because neither party in a tenancy by the entirety can alienate the property without the consent of the other, answer choice B provides the truest statement. Answer choice A is incorrect because even if the two grantees had held the property as a joint tenancy, the second grantee would then own the property with the friend as tenants in common. Answer choice C is incorrect because knowledge of a conveyance is not a requirement in severing a co-tenancy. Answer choice D would be correct if the two grantees had owned Lawnacre as a joint tenancy; however, answer choice B is the better answer.
Can anyone explain to me how this creates a tenancy by the entirety and not a joint tenancy? I do not see any indication that the parties are married.
If the grantees were married, and in a tenancy by entirety, the other grantee could prevail, because grantee 1 would not have been able to convey their interest to Friend.
I'm with you. I'm soooo bad at property. Couldn't stand it in law school, actually mind it much less now, but I'm spending almost twice as long per question on property than any of Con/Crim/Torts, and still not hitting 2/3 right.dsclaw wrote:Thank you for pointing out the, if but only if, language. That does make it a better answer. Wish I had noticed that would have gotten it write. God damn, the property questions take me so long to read that I rush through the shorter ones. I am at 1.9 mins per question.Kretzy wrote:I think that's the reason for the "if but only if" language. D is true if the grantees weren't married. But we don't know whether or not they are, so there are facts that, if true, would allow the other grantee to prevail. So B is a better answer than D, since D says that grantee outright won't prevail when there is a (albeit limited) circumstance in which s/he can.dsclaw wrote:However, the option choice D indicates she wont prevail and gives an answer which also would be correct if it was not a tenancy by the entirety. So the key to the question is finding a tenancy by the entirety. I selected D.Kretzy wrote:
It is isn't necessary a tenancy be entirety. However, that's the only way that the other grantee can prevail. A joint tenant or co-tenant is freely able to alienate their interest in the tenancy, except in a tenancy by entirety (without permission of the other spouse).
If the grantees were married, and in a tenancy by entirety, the other grantee could prevail, because grantee 1 would not have been able to convey their interest to Friend.
If you don't mind me asking, how much of the course have you completed? I started going 7 days a week, 8-10 hours per day about three weeks ago because I wanted to complete as much as possible before July 1st. Frankly, I now realize that it was a terrible idea. Unless you're really behind (and I mean really behind), you need to set aside time for yourself.as stars burn wrote:Just out of curiosity, does anyone feel really lonely? I mean, I'm married (non-law), but I'm so used to being around a lot of people most of the time that this is killing me. I also got off Facebook and Instagram a week ago so now I feel really disconnected. I haven't really heard from anyone, but I assume all my friends know I'm stressed right now. I've been studying 10-ish hour days since a couple weeks ago 7 days a week because I fell behind when my husband and I were trying to find a new apartment, so needless to say, I feel like I have no free time now other than going to the gym or going for a run. This is so lame.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Already a member? Login
I do. I'm living in a new state, my husband is always working, and I spend all day at home, studying and talking to my dog.as stars burn wrote:Just out of curiosity, does anyone feel really lonely? I mean, I'm married (non-law), but I'm so used to being around a lot of people most of the time that this is killing me. I also got off Facebook and Instagram a week ago so now I feel really disconnected. I haven't really heard from anyone, but I assume all my friends know I'm stressed right now. I've been studying 10-ish hour days since a couple weeks ago 7 days a week because I fell behind when my husband and I were trying to find a new apartment, so needless to say, I feel like I have no free time now other than going to the gym or going for a run. This is so lame.
I'm a work-a-holic. It's how I was in high school, college and law school. I don't know when to slow down sometimes. I'm not that far behind--probably about 3-4 days, but I am still playing catch-up. I'm not even going to be able to take the second Milestone Exam until Wednesday so I can finish Contracts. I'm at 45% right now. I do give myself some breaks, like lunch with my husband outside or going for a run or playing Fat Prince because I'm obsessed with that game. Earlier this month I was still going out with friends on a couple weekends, but that has since stopped for obvious reasons.TheBeard wrote:If you don't mind me asking, how much of the course have you completed? I started going 7 days a week, 8-10 hours per day about three weeks ago because I wanted to complete as much as possible before July 1st. Frankly, I now realize that it was a terrible idea. Unless you're really behind (and I mean really behind), you need to set aside time for yourself.as stars burn wrote:Just out of curiosity, does anyone feel really lonely? I mean, I'm married (non-law), but I'm so used to being around a lot of people most of the time that this is killing me. I also got off Facebook and Instagram a week ago so now I feel really disconnected. I haven't really heard from anyone, but I assume all my friends know I'm stressed right now. I've been studying 10-ish hour days since a couple weeks ago 7 days a week because I fell behind when my husband and I were trying to find a new apartment, so needless to say, I feel like I have no free time now other than going to the gym or going for a run. This is so lame.
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login