BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

mrs_featherbottom
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby mrs_featherbottom » Sun Jul 19, 2015 3:56 pm

Can someone help me with a NY wills question? What is NY's stance on the will execution witness also being a beneficiary? I feel like I've seen different analyses in essays - one said interested witness status no long affects the validity of the will, the other said if one witness is interested you need 2 additional disinterested witnesses

BarbriSlave
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby BarbriSlave » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:05 pm

mrs_featherbottom wrote:Can someone help me with a NY wills question? What is NY's stance on the will execution witness also being a beneficiary? I feel like I've seen different analyses in essays - one said interested witness status no long affects the validity of the will, the other said if one witness is interested you need 2 additional disinterested witnesses



I remember the questions that you are referring to. From my understanding, when an interested witness is also a close relative/friend with a long standing relationship, there is a presumption that there was no undue influence involved allowing the gift to be valid.

Hutz_and_Goodman
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:42 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Hutz_and_Goodman » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:21 pm

mrs_featherbottom wrote:Can someone help me with a NY wills question? What is NY's stance on the will execution witness also being a beneficiary? I feel like I've seen different analyses in essays - one said interested witness status no long affects the validity of the will, the other said if one witness is interested you need 2 additional disinterested witnesses


I believe that it depends on whether the interested witness would take if the will is declared invalid. If the interested witness would inherit (ex. son of the testator) then you do not need an additional witness for the will to be valid (son + disinterested witness is enough). The will is valid but the son inherits the lesser of what he would inherit under the will or if the decedent died intestate. If the interested witness would not inherit if the will is deemed invalid (ex. a friend of testator), then the will is invalid unless there are at least 2 disinterested witnesses.

Again, I believe that the above is correct but would be happy to have clarification if this is wrong.

kykiske
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kykiske » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:30 pm

Just finished the MBE refresher.

85/100!!!!

Lightning must have struck my brain. Hopefully lightning strikes again on exam day.

mrs_featherbottom
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby mrs_featherbottom » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:37 pm

Hutz_and_Goodman wrote:
mrs_featherbottom wrote:Can someone help me with a NY wills question? What is NY's stance on the will execution witness also being a beneficiary? I feel like I've seen different analyses in essays - one said interested witness status no long affects the validity of the will, the other said if one witness is interested you need 2 additional disinterested witnesses


I believe that it depends on whether the interested witness would take if the will is declared invalid. If the interested witness would inherit (ex. son of the testator) then you do not need an additional witness for the will to be valid (son + disinterested witness is enough). The will is valid but the son inherits the lesser of what he would inherit under the will or if the decedent died intestate. If the interested witness would not inherit if the will is deemed invalid (ex. a friend of testator), then the will is invalid unless there are at least 2 disinterested witnesses.

Again, I believe that the above is correct but would be happy to have clarification if this is wrong.


Thanks!

Kage3212
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:34 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Kage3212 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:38 pm

kykiske wrote:Just finished the MBE refresher.

85/100!!!!

Lightning must have struck my brain. Hopefully lightning strikes again on exam day.


Damn, nice work. That is the highest score I think I have seen disclosed thus far. What was your score on the Barbri Midterm?

Hutz_and_Goodman
Posts: 1413
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:42 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Hutz_and_Goodman » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:40 pm

Kage3212 wrote:
kykiske wrote:Just finished the MBE refresher.

85/100!!!!

Lightning must have struck my brain. Hopefully lightning strikes again on exam day.


Damn, nice work. That is the highest score I think I have seen disclosed thus far. What was your score on the Barbri Midterm?


I am pretty sure this is 99th percentile given that the Barbri goal is 57/100.

kykiske
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kykiske » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:42 pm

My score on the Barbri midterm was horrific: 108/200.

zta_themis
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:12 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zta_themis » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:48 pm

Could someone explain to me the difference in the vested rights of donee beneficiaries in the 3rd party beneficiary area of contracts? I just did Contracts MPQ set 6 and it was the first question - the one about the customer, bicycle seller, and nephew.

I understand when the 3rd party ben's rights vest, but I don't understand why a donee beneficiary cannot sue the promisee after he assented to the contract between the customer and the bike seller, and he then detrimentally relied on the customer's gift. That seems to fall squarely into when a 3rd party ben may sue according to barbri''s outlines.

victortsoi
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby victortsoi » Sun Jul 19, 2015 4:52 pm

I did 100 adaptibar questions yesterday(total of about 650, so a lot of mbe)- should I still do the barbri mixed sets/midterm/refreshers, or cram state subjects that im weak in?

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

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:03 pm

zta_themis wrote:Could someone explain to me the difference in the vested rights of donee beneficiaries in the 3rd party beneficiary area of contracts? I just did Contracts MPQ set 6 and it was the first question - the one about the customer, bicycle seller, and nephew.

I understand when the 3rd party ben's rights vest, but I don't understand why a donee beneficiary cannot sue the promisee after he assented to the contract between the customer and the bike seller, and he then detrimentally relied on the customer's gift. That seems to fall squarely into when a 3rd party ben may sue according to barbri''s outlines.


I don't have this in front of me, but let me take a stab at pointing out the issue: The 3PB canNOT sue the promisee unless there is a prior obligation between the two. He can, however, sue the promisor, subject to the promisor's defenses against the promisee. You have to distinguish between who he has standing to sue.

Vesting, on the other hand, merely prevents modification of the contract between the promisor and promisee, which case consent is required for a binding modification upon vesting.

Does that clear up the issue? If not, care to provide the entire fact pattern :)

kykiske
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kykiske » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:08 pm

zta_themis wrote:Could someone explain to me the difference in the vested rights of donee beneficiaries in the 3rd party beneficiary area of contracts? I just did Contracts MPQ set 6 and it was the first question - the one about the customer, bicycle seller, and nephew.

I understand when the 3rd party ben's rights vest, but I don't understand why a donee beneficiary cannot sue the promisee after he assented to the contract between the customer and the bike seller, and he then detrimentally relied on the customer's gift. That seems to fall squarely into when a 3rd party ben may sue according to barbri''s outlines.


It took me forever to understand this rule too.

But there's a distinct, yet very nuanced, reason why the donee beneficiary cannot sue the promisee.

Treat a third party donee beneficiary differently from your usual third party to contract. A third party donee beneficiary may sue the promisee to enforce his/her rights under the contract only if: (1) the promisee affirmatively tells the donee about the contract; (2) the promisee should foresee that the donee will rely on the contract; and (3) the donee reasonably relies on the contract to his/her detriment.

Thus, in Q1 of Set 6, it's very tempting to choose answer (A).

To start, the customer is the promisee because the customer promises to buy the racing bicycle for the nephew. The nephew is a donee beneficiary because the customer's promise is merely gratuitous--the customer is giving the nephew the bicycle as a birthday present.

And a very narrow reading of the facts shows that it was the shop proprietor--and not the customer/promisee--that informed the nephew about the contract: "The proprietor sent a photocopy of the contract to the nephew."

That narrow fact alone bars the nephew from suing the customer.

Kage3212
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:34 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Kage3212 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:14 pm

Isn't the simplier answer to all of the above third party issues that a third-party beneficiary can never sue a promisee unless the the third-party beneficiary is a creditor beneficiary (here, its not because a gift) and even then can only sue on a pre-existing debt.

Thus, easy rule to remember is that TPB cant sue promisse unless creditor beneficiary on pre-existing debt.

myrtlewinston
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 8:39 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby myrtlewinston » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:16 pm

Hutz_and_Goodman wrote:
mrs_featherbottom wrote:Can someone help me with a NY wills question? What is NY's stance on the will execution witness also being a beneficiary? I feel like I've seen different analyses in essays - one said interested witness status no long affects the validity of the will, the other said if one witness is interested you need 2 additional disinterested witnesses


I believe that it depends on whether the interested witness would take if the will is declared invalid. If the interested witness would inherit (ex. son of the testator) then you do not need an additional witness for the will to be valid (son + disinterested witness is enough). The will is valid but the son inherits the lesser of what he would inherit under the will or if the decedent died intestate. If the interested witness would not inherit if the will is deemed invalid (ex. a friend of testator), then the will is invalid unless there are at least 2 disinterested witnesses.

Again, I believe that the above is correct but would be happy to have clarification if this is wrong.


An witness may keep a bequest made to him if there are at least two other non-interested witnesses AND his testimony is not required to probate the will.
Last edited by myrtlewinston on Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:16 pm

kykiske wrote:Just finished the MBE refresher.

85/100!!!!

Lightning must have struck my brain. Hopefully lightning strikes again on exam day.


Holy cow... that is an insane score...

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

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:18 pm

Kage3212 wrote:Isn't the simplier answer to all of the above third party issues that a third-party beneficiary can never sue a promisee unless the the third-party beneficiary is a creditor beneficiary (here, its not because a gift) and even then can only sue on a pre-existing debt.

Thus, easy rule to remember is that TPB cant sue promisse unless creditor beneficiary on pre-existing debt.


Yes; exactly. This is also exactly what I said ;)

May it simple and sweet. No need to make it complicated, guys/girls :)

zta_themis
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 9:12 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby zta_themis » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:19 pm

kykiske wrote:
zta_themis wrote:Could someone explain to me the difference in the vested rights of donee beneficiaries in the 3rd party beneficiary area of contracts? I just did Contracts MPQ set 6 and it was the first question - the one about the customer, bicycle seller, and nephew.

I understand when the 3rd party ben's rights vest, but I don't understand why a donee beneficiary cannot sue the promisee after he assented to the contract between the customer and the bike seller, and he then detrimentally relied on the customer's gift. That seems to fall squarely into when a 3rd party ben may sue according to barbri''s outlines.


It took me forever to understand this rule too.

But there's a distinct, yet very nuanced, reason why the donee beneficiary cannot sue the promisee.

Treat a third party donee beneficiary differently from your usual third party to contract. A third party donee beneficiary may sue the promisee to enforce his/her rights under the contract only if: (1) the promisee affirmatively tells the donee about the contract; (2) the promisee should foresee that the donee will rely on the contract; and (3) the donee reasonably relies on the contract to his/her detriment.

Thus, in Q1 of Set 6, it's very tempting to choose answer (A).

To start, the customer is the promisee because the customer promises to buy the racing bicycle for the nephew. The nephew is a donee beneficiary because the customer's promise is merely gratuitous--the customer is giving the nephew the bicycle as a birthday present.

And a very narrow reading of the facts shows that it was the shop proprietor--and not the customer/promisee--that informed the nephew about the contract: "The proprietor sent a photocopy of the contract to the nephew."

That narrow fact alone bars the nephew from suing the customer.



PERFECT thank you! not sure why I missed that when I was reviewing the CMR outline, maybe it's time to look at the multistate monster outline...

kykiske
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:12 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kykiske » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:27 pm

kyle010723 wrote:
kykiske wrote:Just finished the MBE refresher.

85/100!!!!

Lightning must have struck my brain. Hopefully lightning strikes again on exam day.


Holy cow... that is an insane score...


Thanks. But I'm going to chalk this up to utter luck.

On previous MPQs/practice sets, for questions where I narrowed the answer down to two choices, I always picked the wrong one. Today, on the refresher, for those questions where I narrowed the answer down to two choices, I picked the correct one.

I can't really explain it as anything more than luck. Statistically, I had a 50/50 chance in getting it right, and I just happened to guess right today.

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:27 pm

Kage3212 wrote:Isn't the simplier answer to all of the above third party issues that a third-party beneficiary can never sue a promisee unless the the third-party beneficiary is a creditor beneficiary (here, its not because a gift) and even then can only sue on a pre-existing debt.

Thus, easy rule to remember is that TPB cant sue promisse unless creditor beneficiary on pre-existing debt.


Except, apparently there's an exception where a donee TPB can sue the promisee if the promisee told the TPB about the promise, and there was reasonable reliance by the TPB. I didn't know about this rule. It sounds like a "promissory estoppel" concept.

Kage3212
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:34 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Kage3212 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:31 pm

musicfor18 wrote:
Kage3212 wrote:Isn't the simplier answer to all of the above third party issues that a third-party beneficiary can never sue a promisee unless the the third-party beneficiary is a creditor beneficiary (here, its not because a gift) and even then can only sue on a pre-existing debt.

Thus, easy rule to remember is that TPB cant sue promisse unless creditor beneficiary on pre-existing debt.


Except, apparently there's an exception where a donee TPB can sue the promisee if the promisee told the TPB about the promise, and there was reasonable reliance by the TPB. I didn't know about this rule. It sounds like a "promissory estoppel" concept.


Ya, I see what your saying. In considering that example it just sounds like there has been a contract formed between those two (it really is only tangentially related to the third party issue). Thus, the substitute consideration for that contract between those two would be promissory estoppel.

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:35 pm

Kage3212 wrote:
musicfor18 wrote:
Kage3212 wrote:Isn't the simplier answer to all of the above third party issues that a third-party beneficiary can never sue a promisee unless the the third-party beneficiary is a creditor beneficiary (here, its not because a gift) and even then can only sue on a pre-existing debt.

Thus, easy rule to remember is that TPB cant sue promisse unless creditor beneficiary on pre-existing debt.


Except, apparently there's an exception where a donee TPB can sue the promisee if the promisee told the TPB about the promise, and there was reasonable reliance by the TPB. I didn't know about this rule. It sounds like a "promissory estoppel" concept.


Ya, I see what your saying. In considering that example it just sounds like there has been a contract formed between those two (it really is only tangentially related to the third party issue). Thus, the substitute consideration for that contract between those two would be promissory estoppel.


Ha! Good point. Very clever way of thinking of it.

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:39 pm

Folks: When, if ever, does "claim of right" or "color of title" matter in the context of adverse possession and easements by prescription? For NY people, Franzese's property lecture handout (chart on p. 51) says that prescription requires use that "actual under a claim of right," but that term never comes up anywhere else in the lecture. On p. 68, it says that, for MBE purposes, the adverse possessor's state of mind is irrelevant. But in NY, the adverse possessor must have a good faith belief that the land is his. Is this the same thing as "under claim of right"? Is this MBE/NY distinction the same for easements by prescription? And does "color of title" ever come into play?

lostinarkansas
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 8:37 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby lostinarkansas » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:41 pm

plurilingue wrote:In Real Property Set 6, I missed question 13, which I thought was a bit unfair since it was never explicitly stated that the conveyance to the mining company was for value. The explanation to the question states that the mining company was a BFP, but how was one to know this?

Also, I took the MBE Refresher and scored 62/100 (with 45 minutes remaining). I only got 4/14 Con Law questions correct! Did anyone else find CL especially difficult?


Con Law is one of my better ones too and I got like 5 right.

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:42 pm

Kage3212 wrote:
Blue Ivy wrote:With respect to residential properties, there seems to be a lot of cross over between the remedies if there is breach of quiet enjoyment and breach of warranty of habitability. Aside from the commercial v. residential property context, when would analysis under one be appropriate instead of the other?

It seems like for something like a landlord not providing hot water you could argue that both would be breached. Are there times that only one is breached and the other is not?


Breach of quiet enjoyment --> gotta be substantial interference, notice to LL to fix it, and then the T must leave the premisses if not fixed

Breach of habitability --> Focuses more on necessities (hot water as you mentioned probably qualifies), but T doesn't need to leave the premises in order to prove the case. So T could stay there and deduct rent, or sue for damages, etc.

For analysis sake, if the T does not quit the property, then she won't be able to get breach of quiet enjoyment remedies. The law is more strict to the T there because I think the courts really want to make sure that there is a substantial interference involved.


Another important difference is that the implied warranty of quiet enjoyment only protects against things the L does or doesn't do. It doesn't protect against anything a 3rd party does, except that L has a duty not to allow nuisances on the property and to control common areas. I think this distinction came up on one of the recent MPQ questions.

victortsoi
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby victortsoi » Sun Jul 19, 2015 5:50 pm

musicfor18 wrote:Folks: When, if ever, does "claim of right" or "color of title" matter in the context of adverse possession and easements by prescription? For NY people, Franzese's property lecture handout (chart on p. 51) says that prescription requires use that "actual under a claim of right," but that term never comes up anywhere else in the lecture. On p. 68, it says that, for MBE purposes, the adverse possessor's state of mind is irrelevant. But in NY, the adverse possessor must have a good faith belief that the land is his. Is this the same thing as "under claim of right"? Is this MBE/NY distinction the same for easements by prescription? And does "color of title" ever come into play?



correct me if im wrong, but doing a few questions on adaptibar- it seems that yes, it does not matter what the APer thinks, he could hate the grantor but if the grantor has given his permission, no adverse possession. On the other hand, he could think he's the grantor's best friend and that he does have permission to use an easement/piece of land, but if he actually doesn't, that might satisfy the hostility requirement (along with the other requirements of course) and be adverse possession. At least thats my understanding.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: daisrt, unclepete and 7 guests