July 2015 California Bar Exam

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:03 pm

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:i called it restraint on alienability instead of alienation :oops:


That's technically correct.

BrokenMouse
im above average FICO buddy
Posts: 1352
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BrokenMouse » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:04 pm

lol
Last edited by BrokenMouse on Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
acronyx
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:33 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby acronyx » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:07 pm

BrokenMouse wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:Does anyone have a good/easy source to read about PR CA/MR distinctions?

I have a few outlines with conflicting information, Leansheets is not good to present detailed info, and Kaplan's conviser-esque book is CA specific and doesn't lay out the distinctions cleanly.


The most important distinction is that under CA you can F your client (no Cosby shit though). Under ABA you had to already be Fing the client before you can commence F. I will never forget this rule.

TITCR. +5pts for the edit.

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:07 pm

BrokenMouse wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:Does anyone have a good/easy source to read about PR CA/MR distinctions?

I have a few outlines with conflicting information, Leansheets is not good to present detailed info, and Kaplan's conviser-esque book is CA specific and doesn't lay out the distinctions cleanly.


The most important distinction is that under CA you can F your client (no Cosby shit though). Under ABA you had to already be Fing the client before you can commence F. I will never forget this rule.


I call it the bulge rule.

BrokenMouse
im above average FICO buddy
Posts: 1352
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BrokenMouse » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:15 pm

lol
Last edited by BrokenMouse on Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Reds622
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:42 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Reds622 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:21 pm

Would really appreciate it if anyone has an answer to this question:

I know a Life Tenant has an obligation to pay the property taxes while in possession... But the limitation on this duty is that the life tenant has no obligation to expend more than the income that can be generated from the land.

Does that mean if income that can be generated from the land is 500, and property taxes are 700, is the Life Tenant still obligated? Are they obligated only for the 500, or not at all?

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:21 pm

BrokenMouse wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:i called it restraint on alienability instead of alienation :oops:


I said some nonsense like "clause which contains preventing absolute alienation..." I couldn't think of "Restriction" at that moment. This is why no one should ever take my advice because I will fail.


You all spotted the issue, and you all seem to have hit the gist of the rule. You'll be fine.

We could sit around and wonder if we misstated a rule, structured our PT decently (or made the right arguments), et cetera, but literally none of that matters now. Our answers are submitted, and it's out of our hands. Plus, for things like today's PT, I think there were probably a few different ways to structure your answer, but as long as you talked about causation and incorporated some analysis of "the rule" and the plaintiff's shit-tier evidence, you probably did fine.

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:26 pm

Reds622 wrote:Would really appreciate it if anyone has an answer to this question:

I know a Life Tenant has an obligation to pay the property taxes while in possession... But the limitation on this duty is that the life tenant has no obligation to expend more than the income that can be generated from the land.

Does that mean if income that can be generated from the land is 500, and property taxes are 700, is the Life Tenant still obligated? Are they obligated only for the 500, or not at all?


Tenants in common must share all rents made from the property.

Property taxes must be shared, unless one is living on the property and the other isn't. In that case must pay taxes up to value of rent.

Reds622
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:42 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Reds622 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:28 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
Reds622 wrote:Would really appreciate it if anyone has an answer to this question:

I know a Life Tenant has an obligation to pay the property taxes while in possession... But the limitation on this duty is that the life tenant has no obligation to expend more than the income that can be generated from the land.

Does that mean if income that can be generated from the land is 500, and property taxes are 700, is the Life Tenant still obligated? Are they obligated only for the 500, or not at all?


Tenants in common must share all rents made from the property.

Property taxes must be shared, unless one is living on the property and the other isn't. In that case must pay taxes up to value of rent.


Right.. and an individual with a Life Estate has an obligation to pay property tax.. Right? But it's limited if the obligation is more than the income that can be generated from land. So, was just curious as to how the rule actually operated functionally.

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:30 pm

Reds622 wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
Reds622 wrote:Would really appreciate it if anyone has an answer to this question:

I know a Life Tenant has an obligation to pay the property taxes while in possession... But the limitation on this duty is that the life tenant has no obligation to expend more than the income that can be generated from the land.

Does that mean if income that can be generated from the land is 500, and property taxes are 700, is the Life Tenant still obligated? Are they obligated only for the 500, or not at all?


Tenants in common must share all rents made from the property.

Property taxes must be shared, unless one is living on the property and the other isn't. In that case must pay taxes up to value of rent.


Right.. and an individual with a Life Estate has an obligation to pay property tax.. Right? But it's limited if the obligation is more than the income that can be generated from land. So, was just curious as to how the rule actually operated functionally.


Yeah but there was no life tenancy after devise if you're talking about what I think you're talking about.

Reds622
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:42 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Reds622 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:32 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
Reds622 wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
Reds622 wrote:Would really appreciate it if anyone has an answer to this question:

I know a Life Tenant has an obligation to pay the property taxes while in possession... But the limitation on this duty is that the life tenant has no obligation to expend more than the income that can be generated from the land.

Does that mean if income that can be generated from the land is 500, and property taxes are 700, is the Life Tenant still obligated? Are they obligated only for the 500, or not at all?


Tenants in common must share all rents made from the property.

Property taxes must be shared, unless one is living on the property and the other isn't. In that case must pay taxes up to value of rent.


Right.. and an individual with a Life Estate has an obligation to pay property tax.. Right? But it's limited if the obligation is more than the income that can be generated from land. So, was just curious as to how the rule actually operated functionally.


Yeah but there was no life tenancy after devise if you're talking about what I think you're talking about.


Haha, I'm not talking about the exam today, at all. Sorry to confuse you. This is a completely separate rule. This is the note I have from a practice question I took:

"Absence of a contrary direction in the document creating the life estate, it is the duty of the life tenant to pay all general property taxes that accrue during the continuance of the life estate. The only limitation on this duty is that the life tenant has no duty to expend more than the income that can be generated from the land."

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:33 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
BrokenMouse wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:i called it restraint on alienability instead of alienation :oops:


I said some nonsense like "clause which contains preventing absolute alienation..." I couldn't think of "Restriction" at that moment. This is why no one should ever take my advice because I will fail.


You all spotted the issue, and you all seem to have hit the gist of the rule. You'll be fine.

We could sit around and wonder if we misstated a rule, structured our PT decently (or made the right arguments), et cetera, but literally none of that matters now. Our answers are submitted, and it's out of our hands. Plus, for things like today's PT, I think there were probably a few different ways to structure your answer, but as long as you talked about causation and incorporated some analysis of "the rule" and the plaintiff's shit-tier evidence, you probably did fine.


Whether good, bad, or ugly, it's water under the bridge. Now, let's do some fucking MBE's :)

RufioRufio
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:46 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby RufioRufio » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:34 pm

This post is for the truly inept.

So I had a proctor who said there was no spell check feature when I didn't see it, and I just kind of took it at face value. So now I'm upset about that. Anybody think this sort of things is a big deal? Obviously a few typos isn't bad, but do most people use the feature?

Also, the other question I asked the proctor was whether I could make the screen wider (usually the cursor can expand the screen moderately, at least it did on the Mock Exam). Nonetheless, I used what couldn't have been much larger than a 3inch by 4inch tiny word prompt for the duration of the essays. Anyone have any tips, aside from enlarging the font, for making the typing area take more than 1/4 of the screen?

Thanks for anyone that helps!!!!

IceManKazanski
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby IceManKazanski » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:37 pm

I ran out of time on the last question of the last essay, briefly mentioned some privacy and then addressed it like a hearsay question. Whoops.

At least I think it made some sense. The phone conversation might get in as a statement against interest, a statement against a party opponent or to show the effect on the listener - creating probable cause.

Nah..I blew it. lol.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:39 pm

InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:
Poopface wrote:i thought that PT was absurd, i felt like i had no idea what was going on and that nothing i wrote made sense haha. Felt real good about the first 2 essays, ok with the 3rd. I'm just pumped that we got all mbe topics today so we have a better idea of what to expect on thursday and can review a little before hand


The very first thing i did was i literally wrote word for word the arguments in the thing we had to respond to under 3 different headings.

Then i read the cases, and did like 1-2 sentences for the part of each case that addressed each argument, then said
"This case applies to our situation because ..."
"they incorrectly argue that...."
However, they are wrong because under the case, so and so...

I figured at least that way i would do exactly what the frickin task memo said. So they cant dock points for that.

I didnt want to get lost in the library on irrelevant shit, and then "learn the guys arguments" on the fly before responding to it when theres like 45 min left to write and my mind is dead.

Yeah im trying to talk about this in general terms so i dont violate this sites rules...


Not going to lie, I did not have time to study PTs. I basically just copied the format and expanded on it from what they provided us. When I first read your post, I was like "omg we had to argue both sides objectively?!" and then I reread and realized that it's just a persuasive thing to support our side.

Man, what a rollercoaster of emotion.

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:40 pm

IceManKazanski wrote:I ran out of time on the last question of the last essay, briefly mentioned some privacy and then addressed it like a hearsay question. Whoops.

At least I think it made some sense. The phone conversation might get in as a statement against interest, a statement against a party opponent or to show the effect on the listener - creating probable cause.

Nah..I blew it. lol.


uh...

IceManKazanski
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby IceManKazanski » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:42 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
IceManKazanski wrote:I ran out of time on the last question of the last essay, briefly mentioned some privacy and then addressed it like a hearsay question. Whoops.

At least I think it made some sense. The phone conversation might get in as a statement against interest, a statement against a party opponent or to show the effect on the listener - creating probable cause.

Nah..I blew it. lol.


uh...


As far as BS goes though...better than leaving it blank!

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:42 pm

redblueyellow wrote:
InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:
Poopface wrote:i thought that PT was absurd, i felt like i had no idea what was going on and that nothing i wrote made sense haha. Felt real good about the first 2 essays, ok with the 3rd. I'm just pumped that we got all mbe topics today so we have a better idea of what to expect on thursday and can review a little before hand


The very first thing i did was i literally wrote word for word the arguments in the thing we had to respond to under 3 different headings.

Then i read the cases, and did like 1-2 sentences for the part of each case that addressed each argument, then said
"This case applies to our situation because ..."
"they incorrectly argue that...."
However, they are wrong because under the case, so and so...

I figured at least that way i would do exactly what the frickin task memo said. So they cant dock points for that.

I didnt want to get lost in the library on irrelevant shit, and then "learn the guys arguments" on the fly before responding to it when theres like 45 min left to write and my mind is dead.

Yeah im trying to talk about this in general terms so i dont violate this sites rules...


Not going to lie, I did not have time to study PTs. I basically just copied the format and expanded on it from what they provided us. When I first read your post, I was like "omg we had to argue both sides objectively?!" and then I reread and realized that it's just a persuasive thing to support our side.

Man, what a rollercoaster of emotion.


It was a hard PT (period). Maybe one of the hardest I've seen (I did 7 or so since January). People that said it wasn't hard had to have missed the gist. The fact that you didn't have to do the intro, facts, conclusion, etc., told you they wanted you to nail analyzing and hit everything--if was fucking hard.

The ONLY thing that made me feel good was having written more than a dozen reply briefs on MSJ's from clerking (period). And, it was still a bitch to do in 3 hours and feel remotely competent.

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:43 pm

IceManKazanski wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
IceManKazanski wrote:I ran out of time on the last question of the last essay, briefly mentioned some privacy and then addressed it like a hearsay question. Whoops.

At least I think it made some sense. The phone conversation might get in as a statement against interest, a statement against a party opponent or to show the effect on the listener - creating probable cause.

Nah..I blew it. lol.


uh...


As far as BS goes though...better than leaving it blank!


Yes ;)

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:44 pm

IceManKazanski wrote:I ran out of time on the last question of the last essay, briefly mentioned some privacy and then addressed it like a hearsay question. Whoops.

At least I think it made some sense. The phone conversation might get in as a statement against interest, a statement against a party opponent or to show the effect on the listener - creating probable cause.

Nah..I blew it. lol.


What about the other two?

IceManKazanski
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby IceManKazanski » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:48 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
IceManKazanski wrote:I ran out of time on the last question of the last essay, briefly mentioned some privacy and then addressed it like a hearsay question. Whoops.

At least I think it made some sense. The phone conversation might get in as a statement against interest, a statement against a party opponent or to show the effect on the listener - creating probable cause.

Nah..I blew it. lol.


What about the other two?


Got the conclusion right on the the first question. Didn't flesh out the reasonable expectation of privacy stuff enough, but got lucky remembering the rule regarding K-9s in that context.

Second question I think was probably my best answer of the 3.

Would a 60 be too much to ask for after blowing the last question? I did mention a lack of REOP, but I ran with the hearsay thing thinking it was a tricky evidence cross over. It WAS about admissibility...just the 4th amendment not hearsay.

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:51 pm

IceManKazanski wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
IceManKazanski wrote:I ran out of time on the last question of the last essay, briefly mentioned some privacy and then addressed it like a hearsay question. Whoops.

At least I think it made some sense. The phone conversation might get in as a statement against interest, a statement against a party opponent or to show the effect on the listener - creating probable cause.

Nah..I blew it. lol.


What about the other two?


Got the conclusion right on the the first question. Didn't flesh out the reasonable expectation of privacy stuff enough, but got lucky remembering the rule regarding K-9s in that context.

Second question I think was probably my best answer of the 3.

Would a 60 be too much to ask for after blowing the last question? I did mention a lack of REOP, but I ran with the hearsay thing thinking it was a tricky evidence cross over. It WAS about admissibility...just the 4th amendment not hearsay.


You can get a 60. Did you analyze exclusionary rule and 4th amendment and how it's applicable to states as well as state actor?

Calicakes
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 1:31 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Calicakes » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:51 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:Did they really hit us with a right of reverter on the first day?


Invalid restriction on alienation bruh.



YES!!! I got that.

IceManKazanski
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby IceManKazanski » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:52 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
IceManKazanski wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
IceManKazanski wrote:I ran out of time on the last question of the last essay, briefly mentioned some privacy and then addressed it like a hearsay question. Whoops.

At least I think it made some sense. The phone conversation might get in as a statement against interest, a statement against a party opponent or to show the effect on the listener - creating probable cause.

Nah..I blew it. lol.


What about the other two?


Got the conclusion right on the the first question. Didn't flesh out the reasonable expectation of privacy stuff enough, but got lucky remembering the rule regarding K-9s in that context.

Second question I think was probably my best answer of the 3.

Would a 60 be too much to ask for after blowing the last question? I did mention a lack of REOP, but I ran with the hearsay thing thinking it was a tricky evidence cross over. It WAS about admissibility...just the 4th amendment not hearsay.


You can get a 60. Did you analyze exclusionary rule and 4th amendment and how it's applicable to states as well as state actor?


Got 4th Amendment + exclusionary rule but I was scrambling for time and left out the latter part. Had it written on my notes, too.

TitoSantana
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:51 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby TitoSantana » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:53 pm

California is on the verge of bankruptcy! Forget about the rest of the exam! If you decide to keep going, make sure to cove you 2nd amendment material and maritime law. It will definitely be covered on day 3. You're welcome! And to all the extended time test takers who took the short bus, I'll type slower on my next post.✈️




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests