2015 February California Bar Exam

Pickledbeets92
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:09 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Pickledbeets92 » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:55 am

Evaly wrote:Doh, this is not making me calm...80% is really high. I am just going to go panic now :?


It is, but on my graded practice essays I averaged around 55 and didn't score higher than 60 (I got a 61) until two weeks before the exam. And that was on a performance test, where you don't need to memorize the common law definition of manslaughter. I don't want to be that guy telling everyone they're going to pass. That's not the case. It definitely wasn't the case last year where the majority who sat for the exam did not pass. All I'm saying is that you don't need to be perfect and you're not going to be perfect. But if you're reasonably well prepared (I probably studied for about 150-200 hours) and you've got a head on your shoulders, you've got a chance, and a pretty good one at that.

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:22 am

Pickledbeets92 wrote:
Evaly wrote:Doh, this is not making me calm...80% is really high. I am just going to go panic now :?


It is, but on my graded practice essays I averaged around 55 and didn't score higher than 60 (I got a 61) until two weeks before the exam. And that was on a performance test, where you don't need to memorize the common law definition of manslaughter. I don't want to be that guy telling everyone they're going to pass. That's not the case. It definitely wasn't the case last year where the majority who sat for the exam did not pass. All I'm saying is that you don't need to be perfect and you're not going to be perfect. But if you're reasonably well prepared (I probably studied for about 150-200 hours) and you've got a head on your shoulders, you've got a chance, and a pretty good one at that.


I still hate you right now :P

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:09 am

Question for Community Property - Quasi Community Property

H and W are married when domiciled in a non-CP state. H acquires property on his own, so while it would be CP if they were in CA, it's considered separate until death/divorce.

At divorce, the property is treated as CP.

But what happens at death?

From what I understand, the survivor takes 1/2 interest in the decedent's interest in the QCP, whereas decedent has no interest in the survivor's QCP. Does this mean that the surviving spouse has a 1/2 interest total or does the surviving spouse have 3/4 total interest (1/2 of his own QCP + (1/2 of the 1/2 of the decedent's QCP))? That would leave 1/4 remaining to be passed down via a will/intestacy on the decedent's wishes.

Which one is correct?

morescotchplease
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:46 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby morescotchplease » Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:19 pm

redblueyellow wrote:Question for Community Property - Quasi Community Property

H and W are married when domiciled in a non-CP state. H acquires property on his own, so while it would be CP if they were in CA, it's considered separate until death/divorce.

At divorce, the property is treated as CP.

But what happens at death?

From what I understand, the survivor takes 1/2 interest in the decedent's interest in the QCP, whereas decedent has no interest in the survivor's QCP. Does this mean that the surviving spouse has a 1/2 interest total or does the surviving spouse have 3/4 total interest (1/2 of his own QCP + (1/2 of the 1/2 of the decedent's QCP))? That would leave 1/4 remaining to be passed down via a will/intestacy on the decedent's wishes.

Which one is correct?


That sounds too complicated. From what I understand, non-acquiring spouse can't devise the acquiring spouse's QCP, s/he just has mere expectation of receiving it on divorce or death of acquiring spouse. So just treat it as CP even on death until non-acquiring spouse dies first. then the entire QCP doesn't get split 1/2 to the now deceased non-acquiring spouse. But to remember all this, just remember that non-acquiring spouse can't devise QCP assets.

PennJD83
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:20 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby PennJD83 » Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:16 pm

So....can anyone tell me the IMPORTANT/NECESSARY concepts I should study for CA Civ Pro? It's pretty much the only subject I haven't really touched yet. Any advice would be great. Thanks!

User avatar
Elms
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:06 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Elms » Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:40 pm

redblueyellow wrote:
Pickledbeets92 wrote:
Evaly wrote:Doh, this is not making me calm...80% is really high. I am just going to go panic now :?


It is, but on my graded practice essays I averaged around 55 and didn't score higher than 60 (I got a 61) until two weeks before the exam. And that was on a performance test, where you don't need to memorize the common law definition of manslaughter. I don't want to be that guy telling everyone they're going to pass. That's not the case. It definitely wasn't the case last year where the majority who sat for the exam did not pass. All I'm saying is that you don't need to be perfect and you're not going to be perfect. But if you're reasonably well prepared (I probably studied for about 150-200 hours) and you've got a head on your shoulders, you've got a chance, and a pretty good one at that.


I still hate you right now :P


I hate everyone right now that doesn't have to sit for this stupid exam next week. :?

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:55 pm

Elms wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
Pickledbeets92 wrote:
Evaly wrote:Doh, this is not making me calm...80% is really high. I am just going to go panic now :?


It is, but on my graded practice essays I averaged around 55 and didn't score higher than 60 (I got a 61) until two weeks before the exam. And that was on a performance test, where you don't need to memorize the common law definition of manslaughter. I don't want to be that guy telling everyone they're going to pass. That's not the case. It definitely wasn't the case last year where the majority who sat for the exam did not pass. All I'm saying is that you don't need to be perfect and you're not going to be perfect. But if you're reasonably well prepared (I probably studied for about 150-200 hours) and you've got a head on your shoulders, you've got a chance, and a pretty good one at that.


I still hate you right now :P


I hate everyone right now that doesn't have to sit for this stupid exam next week. :?



Wait….it's next week?!
Yeah I hate you, too. I'm working on Wills and Trusts now. Crim Law Crim Pro later tonight and tomorrow…Going to try to get one full review of each subject. Then after that it's in Dog's hands.

morescotchplease
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:46 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby morescotchplease » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:00 pm

Elms wrote:
I hate everyone right now that doesn't have to sit for this stupid exam next week. :?


This includes my wife and kids....j/k not really.

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

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby a male human » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:24 pm

Elms wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
Pickledbeets92 wrote:
Evaly wrote:Doh, this is not making me calm...80% is really high. I am just going to go panic now :?


It is, but on my graded practice essays I averaged around 55 and didn't score higher than 60 (I got a 61) until two weeks before the exam. And that was on a performance test, where you don't need to memorize the common law definition of manslaughter. I don't want to be that guy telling everyone they're going to pass. That's not the case. It definitely wasn't the case last year where the majority who sat for the exam did not pass. All I'm saying is that you don't need to be perfect and you're not going to be perfect. But if you're reasonably well prepared (I probably studied for about 150-200 hours) and you've got a head on your shoulders, you've got a chance, and a pretty good one at that.


I still hate you right now :P


I hate everyone right now that doesn't have to sit for this stupid exam next week. :?

What about people who recently took it twice?

User avatar
bb8900
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby bb8900 » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:19 pm

underthirty wrote:
bb8900 wrote:
underthirty wrote:
bb8900 wrote:Civ Pro Questions:

1. I am still struggling with aggregation of claims and parties. Basically, when can two plaintiffs aggregate against one defendant? Ex: P1 and P2 have a pole fall on their cars. P1 has damages of $75,000. P2 has damages of $15,000. D is resident of forum state. P1 & P2 are both residents of a different state. P1 & P2 want to sue D jointly. May they?

2. What if P1 had claims over $75,000? Then could P2 have "piggybacked" and aggregated?

3. What about if one P wants to aggregate multiple claims against one D. Can P aggregate random claims to get over the 75K requirement? Ex: P wants to sue D in diversity. P has one claim for $40,000 under a K claim, and another claim for $36K under a tort claim. May P aggregate these claims against D?

4. Same question as #3, but this time both claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.

Thanks!

1. No. The amount in controversy for each plaintiff must be more than $75,000 (unless it is a class action).

2. No. See #1.

3. Yes. A single plaintiff may combine multiple claims against a single defendant in order to meet the amount in controversy requirement.

4. Yes. See #3.

1. I believe it is no, b/c neither have over 75K.

2. I believe it is yes, b/c if at least one had over 75K, then the court could use supplemental jx to get the other one in.


3. I believe it is yes, b/c P can aggregate any claims, as long as it is against one D.

4. I believe yes.

2. The only way this is yes is if P2's claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as P1's anchor claim. If that is the question you are asking, then, yes, P2 has supplemental jurisdiction. I think I was thrown off by "jointly" in the first question. I somehow thought you intended to create one superhuman of the two plaintiffs...


So just to verify: ex: D keys P1's Ferrari for $74,000 in damages. The next day, D breaks the window of P2's car, resulting in $2,000 in damages. The claims are not related to each other and P1 doesn't know P2. Here, they would not be able to aggregate b/c not same transaction/occurrence? Right?

Thanks for the help!

underthirty
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 11:27 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby underthirty » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:48 pm

.
Last edited by underthirty on Sat May 30, 2015 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

morescotchplease
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:46 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby morescotchplease » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:56 pm

bb8900 wrote:
So just to verify: ex: D keys P1's Ferrari for $74,000 in damages. The next day, D breaks the window of P2's car, resulting in $2,000 in damages. The claims are not related to each other and P1 doesn't know P2. Here, they would not be able to aggregate b/c not same transaction/occurrence? Right?

Thanks for the help!


No it's simpler. As others mentioned, 2 plaintiffs can't aggregate claims period, unless class action via Exxon Mobil. Even if D injures P1 and P2 in the same event, they can't aggregate. P2 can have jurisdiction via supplementary jurisdiction.

fslexcduck
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 7:42 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby fslexcduck » Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:06 pm

Meh not to cause a stir, but my materials say that multiple plaintiffs may aggregate claims against a single defendant where they assert "a single, undivided right in which they have a common or undivided interest." So I guess that's a pretty narrow exception, but it means that sometimes, multiple P's CAN aggregate to meet AIC. I don't really know what a single undivided right means though, in practice.

morescotchplease
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:46 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby morescotchplease » Thu Feb 19, 2015 6:11 pm

fslexcduck wrote:Meh not to cause a stir, but my materials say that multiple plaintiffs may aggregate claims against a single defendant where they assert "a single, undivided right in which they have a common or undivided interest." So I guess that's a pretty narrow exception, but it means that sometimes, multiple P's CAN aggregate to meet AIC. I don't really know what a single undivided right means though, in practice.


No you're right. I have that in my notes too. But I imagine it will be unlikely a fact pattern would come up that way, maybe it will be worth a point to mention/argue it.

underthirty
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2014 11:27 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby underthirty » Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:12 pm

.
Last edited by underthirty on Sat May 30, 2015 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

morescotchplease
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:46 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby morescotchplease » Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:15 pm

underthirty wrote:
fslexcduck wrote:Meh not to cause a stir, but my materials say that multiple plaintiffs may aggregate claims against a single defendant where they assert "a single, undivided right in which they have a common or undivided interest." So I guess that's a pretty narrow exception, but it means that sometimes, multiple P's CAN aggregate to meet AIC. I don't really know what a single undivided right means though, in practice.

I think an example would be: 8 employees sue an employer for promoting only white males to managerial positions. The 8 employees are claiming employment discrimination based on gender and race.


I don't think that would be a single undivided right. An example I saw was for tenancy in common situations where damages is done to the property. Both plaintiffs would have a single undivided interest here.

fslexcduck
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 7:42 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby fslexcduck » Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:20 pm

morescotchplease wrote:
underthirty wrote:I think an example would be: 8 employees sue an employer for promoting only white males to managerial positions. The 8 employees are claiming employment discrimination based on gender and race.


I don't think that would be a single undivided right. An example I saw was for tenancy in common situations where damages is done to the property. Both plaintiffs would have a single undivided interest here.


yeah I think this distinction is right and the difference between the two examples above shows the difference between "same transaction or occurrence" and "single undivided right." I was thinking tenancy in common cases... maybe also just relating to Rule 22 interpleader cases as well (multiple claims to the same property, but not applicable for Federal Interpleader Act cases, because there the AIC is only $500 anyway)...

This is the problem with Themis, they like to give a lot of really random exceptions and then not explain any of them!

Anyways it seems pretty narrow, and I guess it's probably not going to come up, so forget I said anything, everyone!

User avatar
Elms
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:06 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby Elms » Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:37 pm

a male human wrote:
Elms wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
I still hate you right now :P


I hate everyone right now that doesn't have to sit for this stupid exam next week. :?

What about people who recently took it twice?


AMH, you're excluded from the hate because you're so awesome and helpful. :mrgreen:

But seriously, I am so grumpy right now it's not even funny.

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:44 pm

morescotchplease wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:Question for Community Property - Quasi Community Property

H and W are married when domiciled in a non-CP state. H acquires property on his own, so while it would be CP if they were in CA, it's considered separate until death/divorce.

At divorce, the property is treated as CP.

But what happens at death?

From what I understand, the survivor takes 1/2 interest in the decedent's interest in the QCP, whereas decedent has no interest in the survivor's QCP. Does this mean that the surviving spouse has a 1/2 interest total or does the surviving spouse have 3/4 total interest (1/2 of his own QCP + (1/2 of the 1/2 of the decedent's QCP))? That would leave 1/4 remaining to be passed down via a will/intestacy on the decedent's wishes.

Which one is correct?


That sounds too complicated. From what I understand, non-acquiring spouse can't devise the acquiring spouse's QCP, s/he just has mere expectation of receiving it on divorce or death of acquiring spouse. So just treat it as CP even on death until non-acquiring spouse dies first. then the entire QCP doesn't get split 1/2 to the now deceased non-acquiring spouse. But to remember all this, just remember that non-acquiring spouse can't devise QCP assets.


Gah, still confusing to me.

Alright, so if the non-acquiring spouse dies first, then the non-acquiring spouse takes nothing (nothing in will, nothing to transfer away, legit nothing). This makes it 100% SP ownership to the acquiring spouse.

Not sure exactly what happens when the acquiring spouse dies first. The "non-acquiring spouse gets a 1/2 interest interest in the decedent's QCP?" (according to the outline)

What does this mean? If the non-acquiring spouse is taking the 1/2 interest in the *decedent's QCP* then does the end non-acquiring spouse get a total of 3/4 ownership (1/2 is her proportion from QCP + (1/2 of 1/2 of the acquiring spouse's portion)?? If the surviving/non-acquiring spouse only gets 1/2 interest, then where does the other 1/2 go? Is that the acquiring spouse's SP to be devised?

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:05 pm

Does anyone know how to convert the MBE score from its scaled to raw version for last July?

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:12 pm

redblueyellow wrote:Does anyone know how to convert the MBE score from its scaled to raw version for last July?


Nope. I'm convinced it's some type of sorcery.

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:14 pm

Elms wrote:
a male human wrote:
Elms wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
I still hate you right now :P


I hate everyone right now that doesn't have to sit for this stupid exam next week. :?

What about people who recently took it twice?


AMH, you're excluded from the hate because you're so awesome and helpful. :mrgreen:

But seriously, I am so grumpy right now it's not even funny.


So grumpy. I'm almost about to give up. It took me all day to go over wills and trusts. And I'm starting Crim Law/Crim Pro after dinner. Sigh. Still have CP, Real Prop, Comm Prop, Remedies, Torts, PR…I wanted to give them all a good once over one last time. Is it really already Thursday? Crap.

User avatar
zabagabe
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:48 am

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby zabagabe » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:31 pm

Hi all! A quick and perhaps silly Q for prior takers: for the PT days, do they give you actual hard copy materials to work with even if you're taking it on your laptop? Themis has given all essay prompts on the computer (and as I understand it, this is how examsoft works too), but the PTs have been hard copies. I wasn't sure if that's also how they will appear on the actual exam. Thanks!!

And I second y'all on the grumpiness. Yesterday I was about to lose it. Took a few hours off last night for a long gym workout and that restored a functional balance. At this point I think maintaining health and sanity will trump "one more review/essay/MBE set" mentality given the marathon ahead...

BobbyBooBoo
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 9:51 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby BobbyBooBoo » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:39 pm

zabagabe wrote:Hi all! A quick and perhaps silly Q for prior takers: for the PT days, do they give you actual hard copy materials to work with even if you're taking it on your laptop? Themis has given all essay prompts on the computer (and as I understand it, this is how examsoft works too), but the PTs have been hard copies. I wasn't sure if that's also how they will appear on the actual exam. Thanks!!

And I second y'all on the grumpiness. Yesterday I was about to lose it. Took a few hours off last night for a long gym workout and that restored a functional balance. At this point I think maintaining health and sanity will trump "one more review/essay/MBE set" mentality given the marathon ahead...



They do give you hard copies, you won't be able to run anything else on your computer but softest.

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: 2015 February California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:41 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:Does anyone know how to convert the MBE score from its scaled to raw version for last July?


Nope. I'm convinced it's some type of sorcery.


Oh. How do we know how well we did in terms of an approximate raw score? I have no idea what my score means, or how much I need to "improve" in order to get a decent writing score and pass.

zabagabe wrote:Hi all! A quick and perhaps silly Q for prior takers: for the PT days, do they give you actual hard copy materials to work with even if you're taking it on your laptop?


Yup, you'll get paper copies. Nothing on the computer actually.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests