Florida Bar Exam - Official Thread Forum

[EAsports]

What are people's thoughts on Commercial Paper and Secured transactions? Chances we get one of them?

Like I've said (HERE HE GOES AGAIN), we seem to be due up for a Contracts and Torts essay. They hit a Trusts essay every calendar year (and never Wills mc in that same exam) and haven't yet this year. Also they usually hit a Fl Con Law essay once or twice a calendar year. Does the Federal Con Law February essay play any role in their essay picks for July? No clue. So my essay subjects spread out are:

Contracts, Fl Con Law, Ethics, Torts, Trusts. Avoiding: Prop, Family, Commercial, and Secured.

Also avoiding Dependency and Delinquency? I would imagine one of those'd get worked in somehow (but hope not!).

ETA: Otherwise, I subscribe to your predictions, sir.

[Cydiego]

anyone do the MC questions of the FL bar website yet? If so, can anyone explain the rationale for the correct answer on the below? Thanks.

Rainbow Corporation has outstanding 1,000 shares of voting common stock and 1,000 shares of nonvoting preferred. The preferred has a liquidation preference equal to its par value of $100 per share plus a three percent noncumulative dividend. Rainbow submits to its stockholders a proposal to authorize a new class of preferred stock with redemption rights that would come ahead of the old preferred stock. At a shareholders' meeting, 700 common and 400 preferred vote in favor of the proposal. Which of the following statements is correct?
(A) The proposal is validly approved because overall a majority of the outstanding shares did approve.
(B) The proposal is invalidly approved because a majority of the preferred shareholders did not approve.
(C) The vote of the preferred stockholders does not matter because it was nonvoting stock.
(D) The proposal is invalidly approved because a two-thirds vote of each class is required.

[+] Spoiler

[/Bspoiler]

Because the same class (here:preferred) must vote for the change in rights to their class. The majority req wasn't met so no good

[Cydiego]

What are people's thoughts on Commercial Paper and Secured transactions? Chances we get one of them?

Like I've said (HERE HE GOES AGAIN), we seem to be due up for a Contracts and Torts essay. They hit a Trusts essay every calendar year (and never Wills mc in that same exam) and haven't yet this year. Also they usually hit a Fl Con Law essay once or twice a calendar year. Does the Federal Con Law February essay play any role in their essay picks for July? No clue. So my essay subjects spread out are:

Contracts, Fl Con Law, Ethics, Torts, Trusts. Avoiding: Prop, Family, Commercial, and Secured.

Also avoiding Dependency and Delinquency? I would imagine one of those'd get worked in somehow (but hope not!).

ETA: Otherwise, I subscribe to your predictions, sir.

I predict that they will do something unprecedented bc they are trying to be unpredictable.

[Geaux12]

Can anyone explain goddamn physical impact + manifestation for goddamn IIED/NIED claims in goddamn Florida, including goddamn direct/bystander claims?

[joloyolo]

Can anyone explain goddamn physical impact + manifestation for goddamn IIED/NIED claims in goddamn Florida, including goddamn direct/bystander claims?

"A plaintiff seeking to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress is required to show physical impact (however slight) upon his person or the manifestation of emotional distress in the form of a physical injury or illness."

So as I read it, if you dont have physical impact then you need to show physical symptoms of your emotional distress (insomnia, panic attacks, ulcers, etc).


For a bystander to recover, Florida follows the common law (zone of danger or close family members outside of zone of danger that actually witness the event).

[max2000]

What are people's thoughts on Commercial Paper and Secured transactions? Chances we get one of them?

Like I've said (HERE HE GOES AGAIN), we seem to be due up for a Contracts and Torts essay. They hit a Trusts essay every calendar year (and never Wills mc in that same exam) and haven't yet this year. Also they usually hit a Fl Con Law essay once or twice a calendar year. Does the Federal Con Law February essay play any role in their essay picks for July? No clue. So my essay subjects spread out are:

Contracts, Fl Con Law, Ethics, Torts, Trusts. Avoiding: Prop, Family, Commercial, and Secured.

Also avoiding Dependency and Delinquency? I would imagine one of those'd get worked in somehow (but hope not!).

ETA: Otherwise, I subscribe to your predictions, sir.

Wasn't there some sort of dependency aspect in Feb's Family law question?

Also, by your predictions (god I hate this so much...), MCQ will be BE, Evidence, and Procedure?

[Geaux12]

Can anyone explain goddamn physical impact + manifestation for goddamn IIED/NIED claims in goddamn Florida, including goddamn direct/bystander claims?

"A plaintiff seeking to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress is required to show physical impact (however slight) upon his person or the manifestation of emotional distress in the form of a physical injury or illness."

So as I read it, if you dont have physical impact then you need to show physical symptoms of your emotional distress (insomnia, panic attacks, ulcers, etc).


For a bystander to recover, Florida follows the common law (zone of danger or close family members outside of zone of danger that actually witness the event).

You know, I can't find a straight answer anywhere. Thanks for the response. How does "∆'s knowledge of ∏'s presence" come into play?

There needs to be a fucking chart. Does anyone have a fucking chart? I would fucking love a chart.

I CAN'T STOP BEING ANGRY

[941law]

Wasn't there some sort of dependency aspect in Feb's Family law question?

Also, by your predictions (god I hate this so much...), MCQ will be BE, Evidence, and Procedure?

Yes and yes. I just don't think they hit on family/dependency for us. Just the subjects I listed. Cydiego predicts a curve-ball thrown at us and maybe that will be an entire Juvenile Delinquency essay with some Ethics in it. No clue.

[FloRida15]

Wasn't there some sort of dependency aspect in Feb's Family law question?

Also, by your predictions (god I hate this so much...), MCQ will be BE, Evidence, and Procedure?

Yes and yes. I just don't think they hit on family/dependency for us. Just the subjects I listed. Cydiego predicts a curve-ball thrown at us and maybe that will be an entire Juvenile Delinquency essay with some Ethics in it. No clue.

An entire Delinquency essay would be a disaster. Anyone have a good grasp of this subject matter?

[Cydiego]

Wasn't there some sort of dependency aspect in Feb's Family law question?

Also, by your predictions (god I hate this so much...), MCQ will be BE, Evidence, and Procedure?

Yes and yes. I just don't think they hit on family/dependency for us. Just the subjects I listed. Cydiego predicts a curve-ball thrown at us and maybe that will be an entire Juvenile Delinquency essay with some Ethics in it. No clue.

An entire Delinquency essay would be a disaster. Anyone have a good grasp of this subject matter?

No dependency last feb, just fam law. Also, if delinquency is tested it'll be in mc not essays. I'm thinking a really intense torts, comm paper essay w maybe some property elements (bad landlord angry over bad checks from tenant or something strange and difficult.

[max2000]

A lot of my practice Crim Pro questions were asking about delinquency specifically so I figured they throw in a couple with the Procedure section. I'm more worried about a full topic on Secured Transactions at this point.

[Geaux12]

A lot of my practice Crim Pro questions were asking about delinquency specifically so I figured they throw in a couple with the Procedure section. I'm more worried about a full topic on Secured Transactions at this point.

Secured isn't hard, if you ignore dates (which of course they won't let us). Just learn perfection - that'll coincidentally teach you the types of security interests and a bunch of other shit. Default/Priority is good too.

[FloRida15]

Help with one of the questions from the FL study guide posted on the Bar website:

Vehicles driven by Murphy and Goode collide at an intersection where a traffic light is present. Before the filing of any lawsuit, Murphy tells Goode that he ran the red light and they offer to settle the claim for $500. Goode refuses to accept it. Murphy then sues Goode for his personal injuries and property damage and Goode, who was not injured, counterclaims for property damage.
13. At trial, Goode's attorney calls his client to the stand and asks him if Murphy has ever made any offers to settle the dispute. If Murphy's counsel objects, the trial court's proper ruling would be to
(A) sustain the objection because offers to compromise a claim are inadmissible to prove liability.
(B) overrule the objection because the offer was made prior to the filing of a lawsuit.
(C) overrule the objection because only an offer to pay medical expenses is inadmissible under the Florida Evidence Code.
(D) overrule the objection because Murphy's statement was an admission.

Correct answer is A (sorry for the spoiler). My understanding of the rule was that if there is not a disputed civil claim, then the statement can come in to prove liability as an admission. Do I have the rule wrong? Or, is this disputed because Goode refused to accept Murphy's offer?

Thanks everyone and good luck!!

[941law]

Help with one of the questions from the FL study guide posted on the Bar website:

Vehicles driven by Murphy and Goode collide at an intersection where a traffic light is present. Before the filing of any lawsuit, Murphy tells Goode that he ran the red light and they offer to settle the claim for $500. Goode refuses to accept it. Murphy then sues Goode for his personal injuries and property damage and Goode, who was not injured, counterclaims for property damage.
13. At trial, Goode's attorney calls his client to the stand and asks him if Murphy has ever made any offers to settle the dispute. If Murphy's counsel objects, the trial court's proper ruling would be to
(A) sustain the objection because offers to compromise a claim are inadmissible to prove liability.
(B) overrule the objection because the offer was made prior to the filing of a lawsuit.
(C) overrule the objection because only an offer to pay medical expenses is inadmissible under the Florida Evidence Code.
(D) overrule the objection because Murphy's statement was an admission.

Correct answer is A (sorry for the spoiler). My understanding of the rule was that if there is not a disputed civil claim, then the statement can come in to prove liability as an admission. Do I have the rule wrong? Or, is this disputed because Goode refused to accept Murphy's offer?

Thanks everyone and good luck!!

There was a dispute? He offered to settle it before court and offers like that are inadmissible. They don't want to discourage people from attempting to handle these issues on their own.

[Geaux12]

Help with one of the questions from the FL study guide posted on the Bar website:

Vehicles driven by Murphy and Goode collide at an intersection where a traffic light is present. Before the filing of any lawsuit, Murphy tells Goode that he ran the red light and they offer to settle the claim for $500. Goode refuses to accept it. Murphy then sues Goode for his personal injuries and property damage and Goode, who was not injured, counterclaims for property damage.
13. At trial, Goode's attorney calls his client to the stand and asks him if Murphy has ever made any offers to settle the dispute. If Murphy's counsel objects, the trial court's proper ruling would be to
(A) sustain the objection because offers to compromise a claim are inadmissible to prove liability.
(B) overrule the objection because the offer was made prior to the filing of a lawsuit.
(C) overrule the objection because only an offer to pay medical expenses is inadmissible under the Florida Evidence Code.
(D) overrule the objection because Murphy's statement was an admission.

Correct answer is A (sorry for the spoiler). My understanding of the rule was that if there is not a disputed civil claim, then the statement can come in to prove liability as an admission. Do I have the rule wrong? Or, is this disputed because Goode refused to accept Murphy's offer?

Thanks everyone and good luck!!

There was a dispute? He offered to settle it before court and offers like that are inadmissible. They don't want to discourage people from attempting to handle these issues on their own.

I keep banging my head against this "dispute" issue and I've decided to just ignore it and keep offers to settle out of evidence. It's ridiculous to include a "in dispute" caveat when you're going to allow an offer like this in before the potential π has said a single word, argumentative or otherwise.

[Cydiego]

Help with one of the questions from the FL study guide posted on the Bar website:

Vehicles driven by Murphy and Goode collide at an intersection where a traffic light is present. Before the filing of any lawsuit, Murphy tells Goode that he ran the red light and they offer to settle the claim for $500. Goode refuses to accept it. Murphy then sues Goode for his personal injuries and property damage and Goode, who was not injured, counterclaims for property damage.
13. At trial, Goode's attorney calls his client to the stand and asks him if Murphy has ever made any offers to settle the dispute. If Murphy's counsel objects, the trial court's proper ruling would be to
(A) sustain the objection because offers to compromise a claim are inadmissible to prove liability.
(B) overrule the objection because the offer was made prior to the filing of a lawsuit.
(C) overrule the objection because only an offer to pay medical expenses is inadmissible under the Florida Evidence Code.
(D) overrule the objection because Murphy's statement was an admission.

Correct answer is A (sorry for the spoiler). My understanding of the rule was that if there is not a disputed civil claim, then the statement can come in to prove liability as an admission. Do I have the rule wrong? Or, is this disputed because Goode refused to accept Murphy's offer?

Thanks everyone and good luck!!

There was a dispute? He offered to settle it before court and offers like that are inadmissible. They don't want to discourage people from attempting to handle these issues on their own.

I keep banging my head against this "dispute" issue and I've decided to just ignore it and keep offers to settle out of evidence. It's ridiculous to include a "in dispute" caveat when you're going to allow an offer like this in before the potential π has said a single word, argumentative or otherwise.

What throws me is the use of "they" and I wonder if that's what signifies this is a dispute. If it was only "he" who offered to settle, then maybe it would be premature but because "they" are already negotiating it's a dispute. Either way, "they" makes absolutely no sense, right?

[FloRida15]

Help with one of the questions from the FL study guide posted on the Bar website:

Vehicles driven by Murphy and Goode collide at an intersection where a traffic light is present. Before the filing of any lawsuit, Murphy tells Goode that he ran the red light and they offer to settle the claim for $500. Goode refuses to accept it. Murphy then sues Goode for his personal injuries and property damage and Goode, who was not injured, counterclaims for property damage.
13. At trial, Goode's attorney calls his client to the stand and asks him if Murphy has ever made any offers to settle the dispute. If Murphy's counsel objects, the trial court's proper ruling would be to
(A) sustain the objection because offers to compromise a claim are inadmissible to prove liability.
(B) overrule the objection because the offer was made prior to the filing of a lawsuit.
(C) overrule the objection because only an offer to pay medical expenses is inadmissible under the Florida Evidence Code.
(D) overrule the objection because Murphy's statement was an admission.

Correct answer is A (sorry for the spoiler). My understanding of the rule was that if there is not a disputed civil claim, then the statement can come in to prove liability as an admission. Do I have the rule wrong? Or, is this disputed because Goode refused to accept Murphy's offer?

Thanks everyone and good luck!!

There was a dispute? He offered to settle it before court and offers like that are inadmissible. They don't want to discourage people from attempting to handle these issues on their own.

My understanding is that if he offers to settle and their is no dispute, in comes in. The rule only keeps out when there is a disputed civil claim. As another user stated, maybe because question states "...they offer to settle the claim for $500. Goode refuses to accept it." implies it is disputed and thus the rule keeps it out. It's poorly worded at best. Whatever -- can't dwell on it at this point I guess.

[FloRida15]

Help with one of the questions from the FL study guide posted on the Bar website:

Vehicles driven by Murphy and Goode collide at an intersection where a traffic light is present. Before the filing of any lawsuit, Murphy tells Goode that he ran the red light and they offer to settle the claim for $500. Goode refuses to accept it. Murphy then sues Goode for his personal injuries and property damage and Goode, who was not injured, counterclaims for property damage.
13. At trial, Goode's attorney calls his client to the stand and asks him if Murphy has ever made any offers to settle the dispute. If Murphy's counsel objects, the trial court's proper ruling would be to
(A) sustain the objection because offers to compromise a claim are inadmissible to prove liability.
(B) overrule the objection because the offer was made prior to the filing of a lawsuit.
(C) overrule the objection because only an offer to pay medical expenses is inadmissible under the Florida Evidence Code.
(D) overrule the objection because Murphy's statement was an admission.

Correct answer is A (sorry for the spoiler). My understanding of the rule was that if there is not a disputed civil claim, then the statement can come in to prove liability as an admission. Do I have the rule wrong? Or, is this disputed because Goode refused to accept Murphy's offer?

Thanks everyone and good luck!!

There was a dispute? He offered to settle it before court and offers like that are inadmissible. They don't want to discourage people from attempting to handle these issues on their own.

I keep banging my head against this "dispute" issue and I've decided to just ignore it and keep offers to settle out of evidence. It's ridiculous to include a "in dispute" caveat when you're going to allow an offer like this in before the potential π has said a single word, argumentative or otherwise.

What throws me is the use of "they" and I wonder if that's what signifies this is a dispute. If it was only "he" who offered to settle, then maybe it would be premature but because "they" are already negotiating it's a dispute. Either way, "they" makes absolutely no sense, right?

I agree -- must be because "they", but it is so poorly worded. Who writes like that??? I guess "they" do!

[941law]

You guys are thinking deeper than me, which is probably correct.

I read it as: car accident/tort/civil claim happens. There is a dispute at that point solely off the fact that there was a car accident (maybe not). Murph offers Goode a settlement. Denied. Murph then takes it to court and says look, it was his fault (now we have a dispute) and all previous settlement offers are inadmissible now.

[941law]

Be Prepared for the New Subjects
Any time a jurisdiction adds new subjects to their test, there is uncertainty and anxiety. In February 2013, the Florida exam will be adding UCC 3 (negotiable instruments), UCC 9 (secured transactions) as well as some minor changes in Domestic Relations and Professional Responsibility. In our view, the UCC subjects are the major change and we expect those 2 subjects to be tested in an essay format rather than multiple choice.

[max2000]

Can anyone confirm/deny I've got this concept down pretty much? FL recognizes out of state Wills executed formally unless they're oral or holographic (even if valid and executed in the outside state)

[LAW813FL]

Can anyone confirm/deny I've got this concept down pretty much? FL recognizes out of state Wills executed formally unless they're oral or holographic (even if valid and executed in the outside state)

That sounds right to me. On another note, the test starts tomorrow (Tuesday) correct?

[Geaux12]

Can anyone confirm/deny I've got this concept down pretty much? FL recognizes out of state Wills executed formally unless they're oral or holographic (even if valid and executed in the outside state)

That sounds right to me. On another note, the test starts tomorrow (Tuesday) correct?

I can't tell if you're being a dick

[LAW813FL]

Can anyone confirm/deny I've got this concept down pretty much? FL recognizes out of state Wills executed formally unless they're oral or holographic (even if valid and executed in the outside state)

That sounds right to me. On another note, the test starts tomorrow (Tuesday) correct?

I can't tell if you're being a dick

woah how did you get access to the internet during the essays?

lol jkjk

[max2000]

Touché