Page 21 of 55

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:42 pm
by CourtneyElizabeth
I was going to get it into pereira van camp but had zero time so blabbed about how it was a professional practice so he couldn't have gotten anything?? Talked about how bob can have the house but the issue was how much money the community would be reimbursed. I don't know. I'm going to bed.

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:44 pm
by AntiHuman
im surprised we are discussing this shit lol..putting everyone off their game by worrying about minor issues. Everyone wrote different stuff relaxxx.

Tomorrow is the real deal. Everyone should be hitting 125+ out of 190...need a safety blanket for missed issues on essays lol

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:49 pm
by a male human
Wasn't the account practice another Pereira/Van Camp? I was like fuck not this again, but I remembered someone in this topic talking about how an 80/85 essay discussed those standards at length, so I put a few paragraphs about that in there.

BTW, what's a good character count to have per essay? Very rough estimate: I think I had about 6k for Q1, 5k for Q2, 9k for Q3?

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:50 pm
by MURPH
My computer crash on Saturday caught up with me. My computer wouldn't open the exams in the morning. At lunch I had to pay $50 to examsoft to download them again. It was worth it. My hand and arm is sore. I told myself about 30 times to hold a light grip on the pen. But every five minutes I caught my self squeezing the pen like it was gonna bite me.

The PT was OK. It was pretty similar to two practice ones that I did very poorly on recently and spent a lot of time working on improving.

I suspect Property will be on Thursday because the last property essay was February 2012. I doubt they would go 4 exams in a row without a Property question. Who is up for some RAP/future interest question fun?

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:50 pm
by fl0w
yeah so on that CP problem i read the facts about the accounting firm literally 8 times. It was started with CP money... so Van Camps / Pereira doesn't apply? It's just straight up CP during the marriage? I gave B the building as BFP but said some crap about W owing 1/2 the proceeds to H.

HARF!

I fucking hate multiple choicez w/ le'passion.

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:52 pm
by Fiona415
The couple separated and then W's income from the practice tripled. The increased income is her SP after they were living separate and apart.

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:53 pm
by Slansky
I was in San Diego! I was on the other side of the room so I couldn't tell what was happening but that was a scary scream. Maybe he had the glitch? I hope he's OK!

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:55 pm
by kershawfan
P/VC is for SP business brought into marriage or SP business created during marriage. Discussion needed to touch on goodwill as far as I know. From Conviser:

"To the extent that goodwill is earned during marriage, California treats it as CP. Courts generally use one of two valuation techniques: market sales valuation or capitalization of past excess earnings"

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:56 pm
by fl0w
a male human wrote:Wasn't the account practice another Pereira/Van Camp? I was like fuck not this again, but I remembered someone in this topic talking about how an 80/85 essay discussed those standards at length, so I put a few paragraphs about that in there.

BTW, what's a good character count to have per essay? Very rough estimate: I think I had about 6k for Q1, 5k for Q2, 9k for Q3?


i pay no attention to word counts.

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:01 am
by a male human
kershawfan wrote:P/VC is for SP business brought into marriage or SP business created during marriage. Discussion needed to touch on goodwill as far as I know. From Conviser:

"To the extent that goodwill is earned during marriage, California treats it as CP. Courts generally use one of two valuation techniques: market sales valuation or capitalization of past excess earnings"

fuck this gay earth

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:07 am
by kershawfan
Slansky wrote:I was in San Diego! I was on the other side of the room so I couldn't tell what was happening but that was a scary scream. Maybe he had the glitch? I hope he's OK!

Yeah that was crazy as hell! I thought the guy had given up and was trying to take people out with him. Reading another board it sounds like he had a seizure and the guy who tripped down the aisle fainted? Weird afternoon for sure.

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:08 am
by Fiona415
a male human wrote:fuck this gay earth


I'm not sure whether to say, "now, now," or "hear hear!"

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:14 am
by siaynoqq
kershawfan wrote:P/VC is for SP business brought into marriage or SP business created during marriage. Discussion needed to touch on goodwill as far as I know. From Conviser:

"To the extent that goodwill is earned during marriage, California treats it as CP. Courts generally use one of two valuation techniques: market sales valuation or capitalization of past excess earnings"


I think that's 100% right. Was the latter valuation technique preferable because of the sudden increase in income (I think it tripled)?

I'm still so confused about that second civ pro question. What was the issue there? Interlocutory review? Was there a final judgment?

Thankfully the removal/SMJ and injunction issues weren't too bad.

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:21 am
by a male human
At least I had a rare moment of jolliness during the PT when it turned out the business owner guy was sort of an asshole the entire time.

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:22 am
by JohnnyBeagle
I'm taking it at the Sacramento Convention Center

the proctor for my little area literally fell down halfway into the morning session

I was so confused lol

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:23 am
by fl0w
kershawfan wrote:P/VC is for SP business brought into marriage or SP business created during marriage. Discussion needed to touch on goodwill as far as I know. From Conviser:

"To the extent that goodwill is earned during marriage, California treats it as CP. Courts generally use one of two valuation techniques: market sales valuation or capitalization of past excess earnings"


also it's just income earned during the marriage. but yeah. i'm glad i wasn't insane when i seen dat.

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:27 am
by kershawfan
siaynoqq wrote:
kershawfan wrote:P/VC is for SP business brought into marriage or SP business created during marriage. Discussion needed to touch on goodwill as far as I know. From Conviser:

"To the extent that goodwill is earned during marriage, California treats it as CP. Courts generally use one of two valuation techniques: market sales valuation or capitalization of past excess earnings"


I think that's 100% right. Was the latter valuation technique preferable because of the sudden increase in income (I think it tripled)?

I'm still so confused about that second civ pro question. What was the issue there? Interlocutory review? Was there a final judgment?

Thankfully the removal/SMJ and injunction issues weren't too bad.


Yes, I believe you're right about the latter being the preferred method in this case. I couldn't remember much about it and wasn't able to discuss it on the exam.

Was the second question the company's appeal of the denial? I touched on interlocutory orders and the final judgment rule. Also threw in something about 1.5 months being untimely, but I have no idea what the deadline is for that

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:28 am
by 1swift
siaynoqq wrote:
kershawfan wrote:P/VC is for SP business brought into marriage or SP business created during marriage. Discussion needed to touch on goodwill as far as I know. From Conviser:

"To the extent that goodwill is earned during marriage, California treats it as CP. Courts generally use one of two valuation techniques: market sales valuation or capitalization of past excess earnings"


I think that's 100% right. Was the latter valuation technique preferable because of the sudden increase in income (I think it tripled)?

I'm still so confused about that second civ pro question. What was the issue there? Interlocutory review? Was there a final judgment?

Thankfully the removal/SMJ and injunction issues weren't too bad.



I don't think the CP valuation thing was a major issue because they didn't give us numbers and either way its treated as CP. (I could be wrong) Knowing those techniques is a nice point grab that I didn't have so thats good. I def didn't go into P/VC as it wasn't a SP business. I just talked about valuation at date of trial or date of separation affecting distribution amount...I've long since forgotten which would be right and why so I just BS'ed it.

I couldn't discern the 2nd call of the Civ pro either. Seemed to have answered it in the first call for all I knew.

All things considered...not a bad first day

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:31 am
by fl0w
kershawfan wrote:
siaynoqq wrote:
kershawfan wrote:P/VC is for SP business brought into marriage or SP business created during marriage. Discussion needed to touch on goodwill as far as I know. From Conviser:

"To the extent that goodwill is earned during marriage, California treats it as CP. Courts generally use one of two valuation techniques: market sales valuation or capitalization of past excess earnings"


I think that's 100% right. Was the latter valuation technique preferable because of the sudden increase in income (I think it tripled)?

I'm still so confused about that second civ pro question. What was the issue there? Interlocutory review? Was there a final judgment?

Thankfully the removal/SMJ and injunction issues weren't too bad.


Yes, I believe you're right about the latter being the preferred method in this case. I couldn't remember much about it and wasn't able to discuss it on the exam.

Was the second question the company's appeal of the denial? I touched on interlocutory orders and the final judgment rule. Also threw in something about 1.5 months being untimely, but I have no idea what the deadline is for that


discussed final judgment rule and interlocutory and 1.5mo timeliness as well

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:34 am
by kershawfan
looks like it's 30 days. Struck me as odd that they'd appeal a denial of request to maintain the status quo... 1.5 months later

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:41 am
by 1swift
a male human wrote:
Busyvee wrote:OMG!
for the CP I wrote that Bill keeps the building because he was BFP!!!so stupid ahggggg :cry:

Oh man, here I was tired as shit, not even motivated to go out to get a Subway. And then your post and your reaction made me laugh.

Also Courtney, that removal thing...I know some people don't want to discuss it, and not that it matters anymore anyway, but... (copy paste to blow up the below part)

I think you're right that removal can only be brought by D where it could have originally been brought (same rule as proper venue?), which means SMJ (FQ and diversity) as well as PJ needed to be analyzed. I made PJ a short and quick discussion because I spent more time on the AIC being under 75k being questionable because the statute required actual earnings, and the facts didn't mention when P filed. Also, even assuming AIC was only 20k, I said the 200k was pled in good faith. The thing I forgot to consider was that removal is improper if D is already a citizen of forum state, and I think the hotel had its PPB/incorporation there...

Now about that second call...I literally put 3 lines saying something about how you can appeal from a final determination. Then referred back to call 1. Nothing about interlocutory orders because I have no idea what that is.

Then call 3 was analyzing whether perma injunction was proper?


I agree on call 1 and went into SMJ (wish I put a small blurb on PJ). In the end I concluded differently that he didn't have a good faith justification for the amount and it would fail...don't think the conclusion is the most important though seeing the issue itself is. Also through in the word Erie in there...I think call 3 was both about injunction and that it would stand because of appeal a month and a half where they had 30 days to appeal.

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:52 am
by Max Cady
I started applying VC and Per and midway saw that they didn't apply so I basically spelled out the formulas and then put jk doesn't apply. Hope the graders don't skim my essays too much and assume I thought it applied.

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:58 am
by MURPH
I made an issue out of when the marriage dissolved. A marriage dissolves when 1. the couple separates and 2. one clearly expresses an intention to end the union. So did the dissolution happen in 2013 when they separated or in 2014 when W filed for dissolution. I concluded 2013 and rolled with that. I made a little comment in later issues "Assuming that the dissolution occurred in 2014 (see Issue #6 above)...."

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:59 am
by kershawfan
is it safe to assume at least 2 multistate subjects on Thursday's essays?

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:06 am
by siaynoqq
kershawfan wrote:is it safe to assume at least 2 multistate subjects on Thursday's essays?


I think so. The fact that PR was so crime-heavy makes me think crimes won't be one of them (or, at most, will be a cross-over). My bet is on evidence and real property.