Top Law Schools

kykiske wrote:
Can someone help me better understand why (B) is correct over (A)?

ArmyOfficer wrote:

kykiske wrote:I'm reviewing some property MBEs, and am hoping for some clarification.

Here's an example: Landlord and Tenant enter into a 2-year lease agreement, with rent--say $1,000--due the first of every month. Before the current lease expires, Landlord informs Tenant that the monthly rent will increase to $1,500. Tenant remains silent, and the lease expires. In month 25, Tenant remains on the premises. Landlord does not evict the Tenant, but demands that Tenant pay the increased monthly rent. Tenant refuses to pay.

Question asks "what best explains the legal nature of the current lease between Landlord and Tenant?"

Because the Landlord informed the Tenant about the rent increase, I knew that the answer would have to include the higher rent value.

So, I narrowed it down to two choices:

(A) Landlord and Tenant have a year-to-year lease for $1,500 per month.
(B) Landlord and Tenant have a month-to-month lease for $1,500 per month.

I thought the answer was (A) because the Tenant is now considered a "holdover" Tenant. Thus, the Landlord's and the Tenant's new lease would mirror their old lease, but with the higher rent value.

Barbri said the answer was (B) because most courts would only impose only a month-to-month lease at $1,500. But the explanatory answer was not very useful.

Can someone help me better understand why (B) is correct over (A)?

It is because it is a residential lease. Courts will find month-to-month for residential leases, but year-to-year for commercial leases that are longer than a year.

ArmyOfficer wrote:

kykiske wrote:I'm reviewing some property MBEs, and am hoping for some clarification.

Here's an example: Landlord and Tenant enter into a 2-year lease agreement, with rent--say $1,000--due the first of every month. Before the current lease expires, Landlord informs Tenant that the monthly rent will increase to $1,500. Tenant remains silent, and the lease expires. In month 25, Tenant remains on the premises. Landlord does not evict the Tenant, but demands that Tenant pay the increased monthly rent. Tenant refuses to pay.

Question asks "what best explains the legal nature of the current lease between Landlord and Tenant?"

Because the Landlord informed the Tenant about the rent increase, I knew that the answer would have to include the higher rent value.

So, I narrowed it down to two choices:

(A) Landlord and Tenant have a year-to-year lease for $1,500 per month.
(B) Landlord and Tenant have a month-to-month lease for $1,500 per month.

I thought the answer was (A) because the Tenant is now considered a "holdover" Tenant. Thus, the Landlord's and the Tenant's new lease would mirror their old lease, but with the higher rent value.

Barbri said the answer was (B) because most courts would only impose only a month-to-month lease at $1,500. But the explanatory answer was not very useful.

Can someone help me better understand why (B) is correct over (A)?

It is because it is a residential lease. Courts will find month-to-month for residential leases, but year-to-year for commercial leases that are longer than a year.

kmp127 wrote:

ArmyOfficer wrote:

kykiske wrote:I'm reviewing some property MBEs, and am hoping for some clarification.

Here's an example: Landlord and Tenant enter into a 2-year lease agreement, with rent--say $1,000--due the first of every month. Before the current lease expires, Landlord informs Tenant that the monthly rent will increase to $1,500. Tenant remains silent, and the lease expires. In month 25, Tenant remains on the premises. Landlord does not evict the Tenant, but demands that Tenant pay the increased monthly rent. Tenant refuses to pay.

Question asks "what best explains the legal nature of the current lease between Landlord and Tenant?"

Because the Landlord informed the Tenant about the rent increase, I knew that the answer would have to include the higher rent value.

So, I narrowed it down to two choices:

(A) Landlord and Tenant have a year-to-year lease for $1,500 per month.
(B) Landlord and Tenant have a month-to-month lease for $1,500 per month.

I thought the answer was (A) because the Tenant is now considered a "holdover" Tenant. Thus, the Landlord's and the Tenant's new lease would mirror their old lease, but with the higher rent value.

Barbri said the answer was (B) because most courts would only impose only a month-to-month lease at $1,500. But the explanatory answer was not very useful.

Can someone help me better understand why (B) is correct over (A)?

It is because it is a residential lease. Courts will find month-to-month for residential leases, but year-to-year for commercial leases that are longer than a year.

My notes also say that they'll look to what frequency the tenant was paying (per month vs. per year) despite the length of the lease. Here, you're facts tell you that detail of when rent's due, 1st of the month.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

gmail wrote:What speed do y'all do the lectures at? Usually I do 1.5x, but sometimes I slam a red bull and do 1.75

Always 2

dwyf wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

gmail wrote:What speed do y'all do the lectures at? Usually I do 1.5x, but sometimes I slam a red bull and do 1.75

Always 2

+1

Once I started doing it, I haven't been able to go back. Am toying with going beyond 2. Let's push boundaries together.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

dwyf wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

gmail wrote:What speed do y'all do the lectures at? Usually I do 1.5x, but sometimes I slam a red bull and do 1.75

Always 2

+1

Once I started doing it, I haven't been able to go back. Am toying with going beyond 2. Let's push boundaries together.

If I could do it easily I'd go beyond 2 for sure. All we're really doing is waiting for them to fill in the blanks.

rinkrat19 wrote:Anyone consider the Goat book instead of Emanuel? It includes CivPro, which Emanual doesn't, and supposedly included free online access to 1200 more real questions.
http://www.amazon.com/Multistate-Goat-E ... cedure+mbe

soj wrote:

BearState wrote:Hey all. Does anyone have an idea what kind of raw score on the full simulated MBE is enough to feel comfortable with progress? I'm in a UBE jdx if it matters.

about 156
jk

soj wrote:

Kage3212 wrote:

soj wrote:

BearState wrote:Hey all. Does anyone have an idea what kind of raw score on the full simulated MBE is enough to feel comfortable with progress? I'm in a UBE jdx if it matters.

about 156
jk

I think this is highly inaccurate. I have a hard time envisioning "comfortable" as 99.9 percentile.

i know. srsly i think at this point 60% would be comfortable. obviously you're gonna get better in the coming weeks

soj wrote:

BearState wrote:Hey all. Does anyone have an idea what kind of raw score on the full simulated MBE is enough to feel comfortable with progress? I'm in a UBE jdx if it matters.

about 156
jk

mtyler19 wrote:Starting to freak out. The wills & trusts/estates lecturer was awful for TX and I'm still struggling to learn it overall. I've tried picking out rule statements from answers but its not helping me understand the big picture like the rest of the lectures have done for me. Can anyone suggest a quick way to learn it outside of barbri? Planning on going through the materials after I understand it to pick out important rule statements.

mtyler19 wrote:Starting to freak out. The wills & trusts/estates lecturer was awful for TX and I'm still struggling to learn it overall. I've tried picking out rule statements from answers but its not helping me understand the big picture like the rest of the lectures have done for me. Can anyone suggest a quick way to learn it outside of barbri? Planning on going through the materials after I understand it to pick out important rule statements.

ash0117 wrote:Also, most helpful part of BARBRI so far = the simulated MBE video lectures, especially for crim law and evidence. So glad I decided to watch them.