July 2015 California Bar Exam

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Calicakes » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:55 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.


Who had a life estate? One had a TIC and another had a JT.

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 11:56 pm

TitoSantana wrote: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.✈️


Did your parents raise you to make fun of disabled people or was that a personal decision you made?

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 11:57 pm

Calicakes 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.


Who had a life estate? One had a TIC and another had a JT.


He was talking about another case.

In the hypo you're referring to, once the JT was severed, they became TIC's.

tkicker182
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby tkicker182 » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:58 pm

Not sure if this has been posted before, but I should have waited two more years to take this test...

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/07/californ ... ys-to-two/

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby IceManKazanski » Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:59 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
TitoSantana wrote: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.✈️


Did your parents raise you to make fun of disabled people or was that a personal decision you made?


I need you to tell me I got a 60 so I can sleep tonight, BuenoAbogado.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Reds622 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:00 am

It looks like I confused some people in here, haha. Was not my intention. Anyways, does anybody know the answer to this?

"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."

Anybody know what would happen in this situation if property taxes were 700, but the income generated from the land was only 500?

tkicker182
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby tkicker182 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:00 am

Also, did anyone else notice that Essay #2 was almost the same exact fact pattern as the July 2011 essay. I thought that was pretty lucky. Besides the LL/Tenant stuff, it seemed that the only real difference was that this was an attempt to create a fee simple determinable instead of a fee simple subject to condition subsequent.

I think I'm going to keep reading the essay questions just in case this happens again on Thursday.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:01 am

IceManKazanski wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
TitoSantana wrote: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.✈️


Did your parents raise you to make fun of disabled people or was that a personal decision you made?


I need you to tell me I got a 60 so I can sleep tonight, BuenoAbogado.


You got a 62.5. Just don't ever talk about statement against interest on 4th amendment ever again. Go to sleep now you man of ice.

captainplanet
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:02 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby captainplanet » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:02 am

RufioRufio wrote: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!!!!


On the mock exam, you could hide the various other windows, like the side bar and the window at the top saying "Question 1." Try that.

And don't worry about the spelling. They don't dock points for that. I only used the spell check if I had extra time (turns out I had misspelled jurisdiction as jursidiction every single time haha). I think you're better off rereading rather than doing the spell check if you have extra time, because you can catch misspellings that don't show up (like visit instead of vest) or catch where you accidentally forgot to write "not" and reversed what you were trying to say (I caught several of those mistakes today). Maybe it's just me, but I swear that writing software is off.
Last edited by captainplanet on Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Calicakes » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:03 am

BuenAbogado wrote:
Calicakes 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.


Who had a life estate? One had a TIC and another had a JT.


He was talking about another case.

In the hypo you're referring to, once the JT was severed, they became TIC's.



Ok, well I f**ked that up. I thought the rule was for 2 JT's, but its when more than 2 sever the JT, shit.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Reds622 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:04 am

tkicker182 wrote:Also, did anyone else notice that Essay #2 was almost the same exact fact pattern as the July 2011 essay. I thought that was pretty lucky. Besides the LL/Tenant stuff, it seemed that the only real difference was that this was an attempt to create a fee simple determinable instead of a fee simple subject to condition subsequent.

I think I'm going to keep reading the essay questions just in case this happens again on Thursday.


Yep. Got lucky on that one.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:04 am

tkicker182 wrote:Also, did anyone else notice that Essay #2 was almost the same exact fact pattern as the July 2011 essay. I thought that was pretty lucky. Besides the LL/Tenant stuff, it seemed that the only real difference was that this was an attempt to create a fee simple determinable instead of a fee simple subject to condition subsequent.

I think I'm going to keep reading the essay questions just in case this happens again on Thursday.


I did recall that essay when I noticed the adverse possession issue. I mentioned a keep out sign. But there definitely were similarities although it wasn't the same.

Did anyone else analyze adverse possession and dismiss it?

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby RufioRufio » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:04 am

captainplanet wrote:
RufioRufio wrote: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!!!!


On the mock exam, you could hide the various other windows, like the side bar and the window at the top saying "Question 1." Try that.


Got it, I see it now. Thanks! I can't believe I missed that. I was so preoccupied with just trying to finish on time. My eyes are killing me now.

Is there a spell check?

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:05 am

BuenAbogado wrote:
tkicker182 wrote:Also, did anyone else notice that Essay #2 was almost the same exact fact pattern as the July 2011 essay. I thought that was pretty lucky. Besides the LL/Tenant stuff, it seemed that the only real difference was that this was an attempt to create a fee simple determinable instead of a fee simple subject to condition subsequent.

I think I'm going to keep reading the essay questions just in case this happens again on Thursday.


I did recall that essay when I noticed the adverse possession issue. I mentioned a keep out sign. But there definitely were similarities although it wasn't the same.

Did anyone else analyze adverse possession and dismiss it?


Didn't even see adverse possession in there.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Reds622 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:05 am

brotherdarkness wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
tkicker182 wrote:Also, did anyone else notice that Essay #2 was almost the same exact fact pattern as the July 2011 essay. I thought that was pretty lucky. Besides the LL/Tenant stuff, it seemed that the only real difference was that this was an attempt to create a fee simple determinable instead of a fee simple subject to condition subsequent.

I think I'm going to keep reading the essay questions just in case this happens again on Thursday.


I did recall that essay when I noticed the adverse possession issue. I mentioned a keep out sign. But there definitely were similarities although it wasn't the same.

Did anyone else analyze adverse possession and dismiss it?


Didn't even see adverse possession in there.


I didn't either.

tkicker182
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby tkicker182 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:06 am

Reds622 wrote:It looks like I confused some people in here, haha. Was not my intention. Anyways, does anybody know the answer to this?

"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."

Anybody know what would happen in this situation if property taxes were 700, but the income generated from the land was only 500?


My understanding is that a life tenant must pay interest on encumbrances, keep property in a reasonable state of repair, and pay taxes. But these obligations are only to the extent of income or profits of the land. So, if property taxes were 700, and income was only 500, the life tenant's obligation ends at 500 and they are not responsible for the other 200. And on an obscure note, if the life tenant is occupying the land and isn't getting income, than the obligation to pay taxes extends to the reasonable fair market value rate of rent.

tkicker182
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby tkicker182 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:06 am

I didn't mention AP because it had only been 2 years, but it's not like bringing it up and dismissing it hurts anything.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BrokenMouse » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:07 am

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

Underoath
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:49 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Underoath » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:08 am

BuenAbogado wrote:
tkicker182 wrote:Also, did anyone else notice that Essay #2 was almost the same exact fact pattern as the July 2011 essay. I thought that was pretty lucky. Besides the LL/Tenant stuff, it seemed that the only real difference was that this was an attempt to create a fee simple determinable instead of a fee simple subject to condition subsequent.

I think I'm going to keep reading the essay questions just in case this happens again on Thursday.


I did recall that essay when I noticed the adverse possession issue. I mentioned a keep out sign. But there definitely were similarities although it wasn't the same.

Did anyone else analyze adverse possession and dismiss it?


I did, is that ok??

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Reds622 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:08 am

tkicker182 wrote:
Reds622 wrote:It looks like I confused some people in here, haha. Was not my intention. Anyways, does anybody know the answer to this?

"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."

Anybody know what would happen in this situation if property taxes were 700, but the income generated from the land was only 500?


My understanding is that a life tenant must pay interest on encumbrances, keep property in a reasonable state of repair, and pay taxes. But these obligations are only to the extent of income or profits of the land. So, if property taxes were 700, and income was only 500, the life tenant's obligation ends at 500 and they are not responsible for the other 200. And on an obscure note, if the life tenant is occupying the land and isn't getting income, than the obligation to pay taxes extends to the reasonable fair market value rate of rent.


Thank you sir.

captainplanet
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:02 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby captainplanet » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:09 am

RufioRufio wrote:
captainplanet wrote:
RufioRufio wrote: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!!!!


On the mock exam, you could hide the various other windows, like the side bar and the window at the top saying "Question 1." Try that.


Got it, I see it now. Thanks! I can't believe I missed that. I was so preoccupied with just trying to finish on time. My eyes are killing me now.

Is there a spell check?


Yes, it looks like the Word spell check symbol but tinier (ABC with a check mark under it). It's where the other formatting type buttons are.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15508
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:10 am

tkicker182 wrote:I didn't mention AP because it had only been 2 years, but it's not like bringing it up and dismissing it hurts anything.

Same. Seemed like too short a time for AP but I could see someone tossing it out there.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Calicakes » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:10 am

BrokenMouse wrote:
Calicakes wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
Calicakes 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.


Who had a life estate? One had a TIC and another had a JT.


He was talking about another case.

In the hypo you're referring to, once the JT was severed, they became TIC's.



Ok, well I f**ked that up. I thought the rule was for 2 JT's, but its when more than 2 sever the JT, shit.


Wait what? I thought when joint tenancy is created, it can be severed by any one, and if there's only 2 then each of the two get tenancy in common... But if there's 3 joint tenants, then one's severance can only severe his 1/3 share right? But the other 2 has joint tenancy still.


Yes thats right. I said that P now had a TIC and L had a JT. I guess that is wrong.

tkicker182
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby tkicker182 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:10 am

BrokenMouse wrote:
Calicakes wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
Calicakes 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.


Who had a life estate? One had a TIC and another had a JT.


He was talking about another case.

In the hypo you're referring to, once the JT was severed, they became TIC's.



Ok, well I f**ked that up. I thought the rule was for 2 JT's, but its when more than 2 sever the JT, shit.


Wait what? I thought when joint tenancy is created, it can be severed by any one, and if there's only 2 then each of the two get tenancy in common... But if there's 3 joint tenants, then one's severance can only severe his 1/3 share right? But the other 2 has joint tenancy still.


You're right, if there are 3 JTs and one severs, the new owner is a TIC, and the remaining two are still JTs as to each other. I think what he means is that on this question, since there were only two JTs, and one severed, they became TICs. But yeah, if there were more than 2 JTs, it wouldn't sever the JT as to the remaining JTs.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BrokenMouse » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:11 am

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




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests