Top Law Schools

Alright, Real Property issue:

Tenant duties to Landlord--

I have a mnemonic for the duties owed as WRRIN.

Duty to not commit Waste
Duty to Repair
Duty to pay Rent
Duty to not conduct (major) Illegal activities

What the heck is the N?? I can't seem to find it in my notes, or in Kaplan's stuff, or on Critical Pass flash cards. Did I make up a duty??

wentmat wrote:

mhub172 wrote:Wills question - I can't seem to figure out what the difference is between an Ademption by Satisfaction and an Advancement. Both are inter vivos property that are given during the T's lifetime, taken against the heir's share. Is the difference then what happens at T's death?

Is this correct - at T's death, for Ademption the heir receives nothing because his/her gift has been satisfied, while the heir in Advancement will still receive what's left of their share ?? Thanks!

I had thought Advancement related to where the T dies intestate (so it is an Advancement against the beneficiary's intestate share) and Satisfaction relates to where the beneficiary gets what they were entitled to under the will.

I have also struggled with the difference though, but this is the best I can come up with so far.

Oh. Not sure, 100% either way. The material I read made it seem like the B predeceased the T in both cases, but there's just so much swirling around that I could very well be wrong/read it incorrectly.

For those that are super concerned about this topic like I am:
http://www.jetpens.com/articles/Article ... o_2_Pencil

redblueyellow wrote:

AguasAguas! wrote:Hey guys and gals -

Hope everyone is remembering to breath in these last few days. Just a quick silly question for you all ... any idea if we can bring in mechanical pencils for the PT/Essay day, and if we can use mechanical pencils on the MBEs? I assumed not for the MBEs, until I saw here [http://ms-jd.org/blog/article/advice-passing-bar-exam] that she recommended using them. And, the CA instructions only say "pencils" for the MBE day ... though I know every other scantron test I've ever taken in my life specified #2 pencils. Thank you!

Yes, you can bring them. I did last time. Hopefully the machine didn't misread the pencil marks though and take off points...

This time around, I went to the local store and bought new pencils--then I found out that they weren't sharpened and we couldn't bring in a sharpener. So I said screw it and bought "#2 mechanical pencils." Hopefully, I'm good this time around!

redblueyellow wrote:Alright, Real Property issue:

Tenant duties to Landlord--

I have a mnemonic for the duties owed as WRRIN.

Duty to not commit Waste
Duty to Repair
Duty to pay Rent
Duty to not conduct (major) Illegal activities

What the heck is the N?? I can't seem to find it in my notes, or in Kaplan's stuff, or on Critical Pass flash cards. Did I make up a duty??

notice? be nice?

Can someone shed light on trustee's duties to apportion between principal and interest? who gets what? (beneficiary etc) ?? thank you

finally made it to the west coast. I envy you all west coasters not having to deal with the craziness over on the east coast... I had to dig my car out of the snow just last week... good exercise though?

s1m4 wrote:Can someone shed light on trustee's duties to apportion between principal and interest? who gets what? (beneficiary etc) ?? thank you

If they ask questions to this depth, I'm not going to be pleased.

But the answer is: principal takers get stock dividends, stock splits, (basically "big" things) but are also liable for paying off the principal balance in a loan. the other takers can get cash dividends, interest income, but are liable for paying interest charges and minor taxes.

A defendant’s house was destroyed by fire, and she was charged with arson. To prove that the defendant had a motive to burn down her house, the government offered evidence that the defendant had fully insured the house and its contents. Should the court admit this evidence?

(A) No, because the probative value of the evidence of insurance on the issue of whether the defendant intentionally
burned her house down is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the jury.
(B) No, because evidence of insurance is not admissible on the issue of whether the insured acted wrongfully.
(C) Yes, because evidence of insurance on the house has a tendency to show that the defendant had a motive to burn down
the house.
(D) Yes, because any conduct of a party to the case is admissible when offered against the party.

Alright, guys, what do you think it is?

The answer is the second to last letter of the call of the question. I don't see how that's the appropriate answer here, though.

redblueyellow wrote:

s1m4 wrote:Can someone shed light on trustee's duties to apportion between principal and interest? who gets what? (beneficiary etc) ?? thank you

If they ask questions to this depth, I'm not going to be pleased.

But the answer is: principal takers get stock dividends, stock splits, (basically "big" things) but are also liable for paying off the principal balance in a loan. the other takers can get cash dividends, interest income, but are liable for paying interest charges and minor taxes.

thank you!

redblueyellow wrote:A defendant’s house was destroyed by fire, and she was charged with arson. To prove that the defendant had a motive to burn down her house, the government offered evidence that the defendant had fully insured the house and its contents. Should the court admit this evidence?

(A) No, because the probative value of the evidence of insurance on the issue of whether the defendant intentionally
burned her house down is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the jury.
(B) No, because evidence of insurance is not admissible on the issue of whether the insured acted wrongfully.
(C) Yes, because evidence of insurance on the house has a tendency to show that the defendant had a motive to burn down
the house.
(D) Yes, because any conduct of a party to the case is admissible when offered against the party.

Alright, guys, what do you think it is?

The answer is the second to last letter of the call of the question. I don't see how that's the appropriate answer here, though.

The rule for evidence of liability insurance simply states "evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to prove negligence or ability to pay, but is admissible to prove ownership, control, or to impeach"

The way I look at it - if there is no negligence, then evidence of liability insurance always comes in. Here we have a malicious / intentional act.

In terms of elimination: there is no way just showing someone has liability insurance would lead to prejudice, so the first one is eliminated, the second one is eliminated because "wrongfully" is not the test, the test is negligently, so this was a "sucker answer" as PMBR calls it, and then the last one I guess is trying to trick you into making a connection with an opposing party hearsay exception, so that is clearly wrong as well.

Finally keep the following in mind when answering any evidence question: The court just checks if the evidence is hypothetically admissible, it doesn't consider whether the evidence is good evidence or bad evidence. If you were thinking about whether liability insurance is good evidence to prove intent to burn down a house, you got off track -- just think whether the evidence is "hypothetically" admissible. Then it is the jury who will actually determine whether the evidence holds any real weight as to whether she burned the house down or not.

redblueyellow wrote:A defendant’s house was destroyed by fire, and she was charged with arson. To prove that the defendant had a motive to burn down her house, the government offered evidence that the defendant had fully insured the house and its contents. Should the court admit this evidence?

(A) No, because the probative value of the evidence of insurance on the issue of whether the defendant intentionally
burned her house down is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the jury.
(B) No, because evidence of insurance is not admissible on the issue of whether the insured acted wrongfully.
(C) Yes, because evidence of insurance on the house has a tendency to show that the defendant had a motive to burn down
the house.
(D) Yes, because any conduct of a party to the case is admissible when offered against the party.

Alright, guys, what do you think it is?

The answer is the second to last letter of the call of the question. I don't see how that's the appropriate answer here, though.

key is that they introduced it to prove "motive" not that him owning insurance means he did it. Under MIMIC exceptions, certain evidence that wouldn't be allowed can be allowed. Not saying it would be a easy question...but I think that would be the logic.

Hey guys: I made the following thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=244074 (for takers in all states).

The purpose is to pool simple explanations/knowledge on the hardest topics that some of us have probably written off. I know that each time I've taken the bar in a different jurisdiction, I've written off a harder topic because I ran out of time, and missed a couple MBE points because I didn't have a concise/easy explanation to guide me.

Anyway, I'm going to be contributing there. It would be great if others would as well.

morescotchplease wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:A defendant’s house was destroyed by fire, and she was charged with arson. To prove that the defendant had a motive to burn down her house, the government offered evidence that the defendant had fully insured the house and its contents. Should the court admit this evidence?

(A) No, because the probative value of the evidence of insurance on the issue of whether the defendant intentionally
burned her house down is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the jury.
(B) No, because evidence of insurance is not admissible on the issue of whether the insured acted wrongfully.
(C) Yes, because evidence of insurance on the house has a tendency to show that the defendant had a motive to burn down
the house.
(D) Yes, because any conduct of a party to the case is admissible when offered against the party.

Alright, guys, what do you think it is?

The answer is the second to last letter of the call of the question. I don't see how that's the appropriate answer here, though.

key is that they introduced it to prove "motive" not that him owning insurance means he did it. Under MIMIC exceptions, certain evidence that wouldn't be allowed can be allowed. Not saying it would be a easy question...but I think that would be the logic.

Yes, but the trick here was that evidence of liability insurance is usually prohibited by public policy unless.

morescotchplease wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:A defendant’s house was destroyed by fire, and she was charged with arson. To prove that the defendant had a motive to burn down her house, the government offered evidence that the defendant had fully insured the house and its contents. Should the court admit this evidence?

(A) No, because the probative value of the evidence of insurance on the issue of whether the defendant intentionally
burned her house down is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the jury.
(B) No, because evidence of insurance is not admissible on the issue of whether the insured acted wrongfully.
(C) Yes, because evidence of insurance on the house has a tendency to show that the defendant had a motive to burn down
the house.
(D) Yes, because any conduct of a party to the case is admissible when offered against the party.

Alright, guys, what do you think it is?

The answer is the second to last letter of the call of the question. I don't see how that's the appropriate answer here, though.

key is that they introduced it to prove "motive" not that him owning insurance means he did it. Under MIMIC exceptions, certain evidence that wouldn't be allowed can be allowed. Not saying it would be a easy question...but I think that would be the logic.

Agreed. In case you didn't know what MIMIC is, it's motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity and common plan or scheme.

redblueyellow wrote:A defendant’s house was destroyed by fire, and she was charged with arson. To prove that the defendant had a motive to burn down her house, the government offered evidence that the defendant had fully insured the house and its contents. Should the court admit this evidence?

(A) No, because the probative value of the evidence of insurance on the issue of whether the defendant intentionally
burned her house down is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the jury.
(B) No, because evidence of insurance is not admissible on the issue of whether the insured acted wrongfully.
(C) Yes, because evidence of insurance on the house has a tendency to show that the defendant had a motive to burn down
the house.
(D) Yes, because any conduct of a party to the case is admissible when offered against the party.

Alright, guys, what do you think it is?

The answer is the second to last letter of the call of the question. I don't see how that's the appropriate answer here, though.

You're not allowed to use evidence of insurance to prove culpability but you can use it to prove anything else, in this case motive.

MIMIC isn't applicable here because this isn't a character evidence issue. This is a relevancy issue based on public policy.

auds1008 wrote:finally made it to the west coast. I envy you all west coasters not having to deal with the craziness over on the east coast... I had to dig my car out of the snow just last week... good exercise though?

Moved from RI to CA about a year and a half ago. BEST DECISION EVER haha

redblueyellow wrote:Alright, Real Property issue:

Tenant duties to Landlord--

I have a mnemonic for the duties owed as WRRIN.

Duty to not commit Waste
Duty to Repair
Duty to pay Rent
Duty to not conduct (major) Illegal activities

What the heck is the N?? I can't seem to find it in my notes, or in Kaplan's stuff, or on Critical Pass flash cards. Did I make up a duty??

Not conduct illegal activities? I'm looking at my notes and flash cards and the ones you listed and I can't find it.
Love critical pass cards!

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:

auds1008 wrote:finally made it to the west coast. I envy you all west coasters not having to deal with the craziness over on the east coast... I had to dig my car out of the snow just last week... good exercise though?

Moved from RI to CA about a year and a half ago. BEST DECISION EVER haha

I moved here from Chicago recently! NOT missing the Chicago winters... I check the weather in Chicago every day just to feel smug about the fact that I'm missing it, haha!

nvbar2015 wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:A defendant’s house was destroyed by fire, and she was charged with arson. To prove that the defendant had a motive to burn down her house, the government offered evidence that the defendant had fully insured the house and its contents. Should the court admit this evidence?

(A) No, because the probative value of the evidence of insurance on the issue of whether the defendant intentionally
burned her house down is substantially outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the jury.
(B) No, because evidence of insurance is not admissible on the issue of whether the insured acted wrongfully.
(C) Yes, because evidence of insurance on the house has a tendency to show that the defendant had a motive to burn down
the house.
(D) Yes, because any conduct of a party to the case is admissible when offered against the party.

Alright, guys, what do you think it is?

The answer is the second to last letter of the call of the question. I don't see how that's the appropriate answer here, though.

You're not allowed to use evidence of insurance to prove culpability but you can use it to prove anything else, in this case motive.

MIMIC isn't applicable here because this isn't a character evidence issue. This is a relevancy issue based on public policy.

Wait, you're saying that MIMIC doesn't apply here, but then I can still introduce it for motive even though motive is part of MIMIC? What am I missing?

Although, yes, I only knew the rule up to the "unless" portion of the public policy exception, which explains why I missed it.

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:

redblueyellow wrote:Alright, Real Property issue:

Tenant duties to Landlord--

I have a mnemonic for the duties owed as WRRIN.

Duty to not commit Waste
Duty to Repair
Duty to pay Rent
Duty to not conduct (major) Illegal activities

What the heck is the N?? I can't seem to find it in my notes, or in Kaplan's stuff, or on Critical Pass flash cards. Did I make up a duty??

Not conduct illegal activities? I'm looking at my notes and flash cards and the ones you listed and I can't find it.
Love critical pass cards!

Grr, if it is "Not conduct illegal activities," then why did I keep an extra "I" in there? haha

Elms wrote:

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:

auds1008 wrote:finally made it to the west coast. I envy you all west coasters not having to deal with the craziness over on the east coast... I had to dig my car out of the snow just last week... good exercise though?

Moved from RI to CA about a year and a half ago. BEST DECISION EVER haha

I moved here from Chicago recently! NOT missing the Chicago winters... I check the weather in Chicago every day just to feel smug about the fact that I'm missing it, haha!

HAH I've been doing the same for the past couple hours just to feel lucky about escaping that snow in DC.. will for sure take time to enjoy this weather next week today! can't wait.

a male human wrote:chew gum
sleep well and in 90-min intervals
reorder your essays ahead of time
bring a watch to the mbe
get there before the proctor says to get there (not just before the "official" start time like 9)

it's like 2 weeks away idk if anyone will even think about this in 2 weeks

good luck everyone. i'm quoting this because why not maybe you forgot in the last 2 weeks. here is a short related discussion starting from this post: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p8377102

here's a more elaborated version with a 6th tip, which is not to rely on subject predictions if you can. saccuzzo (sp?) has been more often wrong than right, at least when i faced the beast, even with his very general "predictions" (if this, if that...)

http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=284 ... b2af8cc4a3

I'm done studying. As a re-taker, I have 1 piece of advice for you: Right when they say begin, rip open that essay, and first thing that you do: TAKE A DEEP BREATH, count to five, exhale, and then read very carefully.

Good luck ya'll!!

a male human wrote:

a male human wrote:chew gum
sleep well and in 90-min intervals
reorder your essays ahead of time
bring a watch to the mbe
get there before the proctor says to get there (not just before the "official" start time like 9)

it's like 2 weeks away idk if anyone will even think about this in 2 weeks

good luck everyone. i'm quoting this because why not maybe you forgot in the last 2 weeks. here is a short related discussion starting from this post: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p8377102

here's a more elaborated version with a 6th tip, which is not to rely on subject predictions if you can. saccuzzo (sp?) has been more often wrong than right, at least when i faced the beast, even with his very general "predictions" (if this, if that...)

http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=284 ... b2af8cc4a3

What's the ordering essays about? Don't they mail them out to you anyways? Or is there something that I didn't get?? I got my entire packet back after July.

Do we apply Van Camp and Pereira only at Divorce? So upon death SP business can be given away by will without compensating the other spouse that helped enhance the business?

Thanks