BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[Charger]

Sorry for the big pictures. Idk how to fix so whatever.

Anyway that appears to be creating the right of re-entry in the third party without magic words. But the lecture notes say that you must say "has the right to re-enter."

ETA -- Am I violating copyright laws by posting these pics? Fuck. I'll take it down shortly. For ppl with Barbri books, this is Real Property Set 1 Question 8.

There's no "right of re-entry" in a third party. That's an executory interest.

Okay so if the condition subsequent is in a third party (i.e., executory), then no magic words. But if it's in the grantor, then magic words?

Not exactly. The condition subsequent isn't "in a party." It's just a condition that will cause the interest to shift somehow. The question is who does it shift to? If it shifts to a third party, then the third party's interest is called an "executory interest." By definition, that interest wouldn't exist unless you used some words to express it (i.e., "but if . . . . . , then to B"). If it shifts back to the grantor, it's a right of re-entry. The question is whether there will be a right of re-entry if the grant doesn't expressly say so. Barbri seems to say no; you have to expressly reserve it in the grant. If you don't, then the court is left to figure out how to construe the grant. For example: "To A, provided that A never serves coffee on the premises." Is it merely precatory language that the court will strike, giving A a fee simple? Or the court may construe it as a covenant not to serve coffee on the premises, etc. But, at least according to Barbri's outline and Franzese's lecture, the court will not imply a right of re-entry in the grantor.

Now I'm confusing myself reading these comments.

Let's say the grant is "To A, provided that A never serves coffee on the premises." Would this violate RAP, since presumably coffee could be served on the premises for 50+ years and then suddenly they stop serving it? If so, couldn't it never be anything other than a FS to A, even if it expressly grants an executory interest in a third party or a right of reentry in the grantor? What am I missing?

My understanding is that the RAP only applies to contingent remainders, executory interest, vested remainders subject to open, and options, rights of first refusal, and the like. Since this would revert back to the grantor, the RAP does not apply. Can someone confirm?

[brotherdarkness]

RAP only applies when the interest is in a third party, not when it's in the grantor.

[cmc_jd]

Hi people. I've been on this forum since bar prep has started and I've always been too lazy to register. Better late than never huh? Anyways I'm taking the Ohio bar. MBE is worth 33% MPT worth 17% Essays worth 50%

I see a lot of people ask about stats so here are mine. Barbri Simulated MBE: 125/200 66th percentile, Barbri Refresher: 61/100, Barbri Half-Day: 68/100

I don't know where you went to school but our bar counselor sent out an answer that got a 3.5. Figured I'd summarize for any Ohio takers who didn't see it.

It was not organized well and hit maybe 1/2 the issues. It was a dormant commerce clause question and they didn't mention the market participant exception or the substantial nexus requirement for non-discriminatory tax. There were 3 parts to the question and those two rules had a decent impact on 2 of them. Honestly, if it was more organized it probably would have passed despite its legal shortcomings.

I'm in cleveland. Where are you? And your post actually made me feel really good. If that guy could mess up that bad and still get a 3.5 then there's no way I can get anything lower than a passing grade on any of the essays

[kyle010723]

Now I'm confusing myself reading these comments.

Let's say the grant is "To A, provided that A never serves coffee on the premises." Would this violate RAP, since presumably coffee could be served on the premises for 50+ years and then suddenly they stop serving it? If so, couldn't it never be anything other than a FS to A, even if it expressly grants an executory interest in a third party or a right of reentry in the grantor? What am I missing?

No, a FSDPOR or a FSDSCS cannot violate RAP.

RAP does not apply if the interest is retained by the original grantor or her heir, or any vested remainder for that matter.

[kyle010723]

G to A for life, then to G's heirs.

If a jurisdiction abrogated the Doctrine of Worthier Title, who gets the property if A dies before G?

[xlawschoolhopefulx]

Now I'm confusing myself reading these comments.

Let's say the grant is "To A, provided that A never serves coffee on the premises." Would this violate RAP, since presumably coffee could be served on the premises for 50+ years and then suddenly they stop serving it? If so, couldn't it never be anything other than a FS to A, even if it expressly grants an executory interest in a third party or a right of reentry in the grantor? What am I missing?

No, a FSDPOR or a FSDSCS cannot violate RAP.

RAP does not apply if the interest is retained by the original grantor or her heir, or any vested remainder for that matter.

OK. So If the above grant included a clear executory interest ("To A, provided that A never serves coffee on the premises, but if that occurs then right of reentry by B," or something) then this would violate RAP and would be FS to A. But if it's a right of re-entry by the grantor (potentially presumed without the clear language, depending on if you believe Paula or the CMR) then no RAP problems.

Right?

[trustmouse83]

My odds are terrible. I'm a foreign repeater. I won't say how many times I failed before until the results come out!

Foreign as in you didn't attend a law school in the States? Or foreign as in you're not from here but attended a law school here? But hey, maybe this time is your time to pass!

Didn't attend law school in the states. Got my LLB in 2010 in the UK. (Northern Ireland).
But yeah, maybe it is!

[kyle010723]

OK. So If the above grant included a clear executory interest ("To A, provided that A never serves coffee on the premises, but if that occurs then right of reentry by B," or something) then this would violate RAP and would be FS to A. But if it's a right of re-entry by the grantor (potentially presumed without the clear language, depending on if you believe Paula or the CMR) then no RAP problems.

Right?

This is correct. With the exception between charities.

To A and her heirs, but if A ever sell coffee, then to B = NOT OK cause you can sell coffee 1000 years later.

To American Red Cross, but if ARC ever sell coffee, then to Animal Shelter = OK because charities are an exception to RAP in that they are perpetual.

[xlawschoolhopefulx]

OK. So If the above grant included a clear executory interest ("To A, provided that A never serves coffee on the premises, but if that occurs then right of reentry by B," or something) then this would violate RAP and would be FS to A. But if it's a right of re-entry by the grantor (potentially presumed without the clear language, depending on if you believe Paula or the CMR) then no RAP problems.

Right?

This is correct. With the exception between charities.

To A and her heirs, but if A ever sell coffee, then to B = NOT OK cause you can sell coffee 1000 years later.

To American Red Cross, but if ARC ever sell coffee, then to Animal Shelter = OK because charities are an exception to RAP in that they are perpetual.

Awesome. Thanks for bearing with me.

[kyle010723]

Didn't attend law school in the states. Got my LLB in 2010 in the UK. (Northern Ireland).
But yeah, maybe it is!

Oh wow, I would never dream to take the bar in UK or even in Canada for that matter. I am sure the laws are so different even if they all shared a same root.

[charlesxavier]

Hi people. I've been on this forum since bar prep has started and I've always been too lazy to register. Better late than never huh? Anyways I'm taking the Ohio bar. MBE is worth 33% MPT worth 17% Essays worth 50%

I see a lot of people ask about stats so here are mine. Barbri Simulated MBE: 125/200 66th percentile, Barbri Refresher: 61/100, Barbri Half-Day: 68/100

I don't know where you went to school but our bar counselor sent out an answer that got a 3.5. Figured I'd summarize for any Ohio takers who didn't see it.

It was not organized well and hit maybe 1/2 the issues. It was a dormant commerce clause question and they didn't mention the market participant exception or the substantial nexus requirement for non-discriminatory tax. There were 3 parts to the question and those two rules had a decent impact on 2 of them. Honestly, if it was more organized it probably would have passed despite its legal shortcomings.

I'm in cleveland. Where are you? And your post actually made me feel really good. If that guy could mess up that bad and still get a 3.5 then there's no way I can get anything lower than a passing grade on any of the essays

I'm in Columbus. I know, it made me feel a lot better. I know that even if I screw up I can more than make up for it on the subjects I really know.

[Oops2013]

Can someone please tell me that these NY Specific Multiple Choice questions are ridiculous and not as hard as the ones on the real exam will be?

[cdelgado]

Hi people. I've been on this forum since bar prep has started and I've always been too lazy to register. Better late than never huh? Anyways I'm taking the Ohio bar. MBE is worth 33% MPT worth 17% Essays worth 50%

I see a lot of people ask about stats so here are mine. Barbri Simulated MBE: 125/200 66th percentile, Barbri Refresher: 61/100, Barbri Half-Day: 68/100

I don't know where you went to school but our bar counselor sent out an answer that got a 3.5. Figured I'd summarize for any Ohio takers who didn't see it.

It was not organized well and hit maybe 1/2 the issues. It was a dormant commerce clause question and they didn't mention the market participant exception or the substantial nexus requirement for non-discriminatory tax. There were 3 parts to the question and those two rules had a decent impact on 2 of them. Honestly, if it was more organized it probably would have passed despite its legal shortcomings.

I'm in cleveland. Where are you? And your post actually made me feel really good. If that guy could mess up that bad and still get a 3.5 then there's no way I can get anything lower than a passing grade on any of the essays

I'm in Columbus. I know, it made me feel a lot better. I know that even if I screw up I can more than make up for it on the subjects I really know.

I don't know if that makes me feel any better. I think it would be easy to miss some of those issues based on whether you perceived it as a regulation or a tax (I haven't seen the essay). I am more concerned about those topics which involve very minute details where the answer will clearly be correct or incorrect--agency and partnership, secured and commercial paper, wills, etc. If you miss a few details there, all of it can be wrong.

[Redamon1]

Now I'm confusing myself reading these comments.

Let's say the grant is "To A, provided that A never serves coffee on the premises." Would this violate RAP, since presumably coffee could be served on the premises for 50+ years and then suddenly they stop serving it? If so, couldn't it never be anything other than a FS to A, even if it expressly grants an executory interest in a third party or a right of reentry in the grantor? What am I missing?

No, a FSDPOR or a FSDSCS cannot violate RAP.

RAP does not apply if the interest is retained by the original grantor or her heir, or any vested remainder for that matter.

OK. So If the above grant included a clear executory interest ("To A, provided that A never serves coffee on the premises, but if that occurs then right of reentry by B," or something) then this would violate RAP and would be FS to A. But if it's a right of re-entry by the grantor (potentially presumed without the clear language, depending on if you believe Paula or the CMR) then no RAP problems.

Right?

Actually, in this hypo, I think you would strike the language granting the executory interest (after the comma) and look at what is left. You then have a FSD to the grantee and PR in the grantor.

[cmc_jd]

Hi people. I've been on this forum since bar prep has started and I've always been too lazy to register. Better late than never huh? Anyways I'm taking the Ohio bar. MBE is worth 33% MPT worth 17% Essays worth 50%

I see a lot of people ask about stats so here are mine. Barbri Simulated MBE: 125/200 66th percentile, Barbri Refresher: 61/100, Barbri Half-Day: 68/100

I don't know where you went to school but our bar counselor sent out an answer that got a 3.5. Figured I'd summarize for any Ohio takers who didn't see it.

It was not organized well and hit maybe 1/2 the issues. It was a dormant commerce clause question and they didn't mention the market participant exception or the substantial nexus requirement for non-discriminatory tax. There were 3 parts to the question and those two rules had a decent impact on 2 of them. Honestly, if it was more organized it probably would have passed despite its legal shortcomings.

I'm in cleveland. Where are you? And your post actually made me feel really good. If that guy could mess up that bad and still get a 3.5 then there's no way I can get anything lower than a passing grade on any of the essays

I'm in Columbus. I know, it made me feel a lot better. I know that even if I screw up I can more than make up for it on the subjects I really know.

I don't know if that makes me feel any better. I think it would be easy to miss some of those issues based on whether you perceived it as a regulation or a tax (I haven't seen the essay). I am more concerned about those topics which involve very minute details where the answer will clearly be correct or incorrect--agency and partnership, secured and commercial paper, wills, etc. If you miss a few details there, all of it can be wrong.

Judging by the model answers released in Ohio receiving a passing score does not depend on getting the answer or the conclusion correct. In Ohio the graders care more about following CRAC or IRAC, stating a rule (even if its wrong), and applying the rule using the facts. I've read so many Ohio essays that got the law wrong and came out on the wrong side but still received above passing scores.

[Danger Zone]

Can someone please tell me that these NY Specific Multiple Choice questions are ridiculous and not as hard as the ones on the real exam will be?

They are ridiculous, but the real exam is also terribly difficult. Don't worry though, it's only 10%.

[musicfor18]

Now I'm confusing myself reading these comments.

Let's say the grant is "To A, provided that A never serves coffee on the premises." Would this violate RAP, since presumably coffee could be served on the premises for 50+ years and then suddenly they stop serving it? If so, couldn't it never be anything other than a FS to A, even if it expressly grants an executory interest in a third party or a right of reentry in the grantor? What am I missing?

No, a FSDPOR or a FSDSCS cannot violate RAP.

RAP does not apply if the interest is retained by the original grantor or her heir, or any vested remainder for that matter.

OK. So If the above grant included a clear executory interest ("To A, provided that A never serves coffee on the premises, but if that occurs then right of reentry by B," or something) then this would violate RAP and would be FS to A. But if it's a right of re-entry by the grantor (potentially presumed without the clear language, depending on if you believe Paula or the CMR) then no RAP problems.

Right?

Actually, in this hypo, I think you would strike the language granting the executory interest (after the comma) and look at what is left. You then have a FSD to the grantee and PR in the grantor.

I agree with Redamon, except I'm not sure you'd end up with a FSD, since there's no clear durational language.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Can someone please tell me that these NY Specific Multiple Choice questions are ridiculous and not as hard as the ones on the real exam will be?

They are ridiculous, but the real exam is also terribly difficult. Don't worry though, it's only 10%.

I'm planning to do essays first then NY MC. I'm only getting like 40-50% right and there are tons of things not covered in the lecture.

[gretchenweiners]

fed civ pro question about diversity jurisdiction and aggregating state law claims. pretty sure this is really simple but it's tripping me up.

Hypo 1: P brings claim 1 for $40k and unrelated claim 2 for $50k against D = this is fine for diversity jurisdiction

Hypo 2: P1 brings claim 1 for $40k against D. P2 brings related claim 2 for $50k against same D = this is fine for diversity jurisdiction, but would not be fine if P2's claim was unrelated?

Hypo 3: P1 brings claim 1 for $40k against D1 and D2. P1 brings related claim 2 for $50k against D1 and D2. Is this okay? What if claim 2 is unrelated--is that okay? (***If this is not okay, would the sensible thing be for P to just assert both claims against only D1, get aggregation, and let D1 worry about impleading D2 if they want to?)

Hypo 4: P1 brings claim 1 for $40k against D1 and D2. P2 brings related claim 2 for $50k against D1 and D2. This is not okay (and also still not okay if P2's claim is unrelated)--right?

[rickgrimes69]

Edit: nvm

[xfer2013]

After doing a bunch of the essays, I've started doing a modified CIRAC, which includes a full facts paragraph (CIRFAC).

I like it because, based on my self grading, I typically end up with more points because it's more likely that I have included whatever facts they deem appropriate.

It ends up looking like this:

1) Conclusion, Issue
2) Rule
3) Facts ("Here, ... [basically retelling all parts of the story that I think could conceivably be relevant]")
4) Application ("Applying the rule to these facts, ....")
5) Conclusion (one sentence, "Thus ...")

I know it is important to the graders that you follow CIRAC or something similar. Does anyone see a downside to modifying CIRAC like this?

[charlesxavier]

Rule of convenience question: "To A for life, then to my children equally." If grantor has only one child when A dies the child takes in FSA because once he was entitled the class closed. It doesn't matter that grantor could technically have more kids, right?

[xfer2013]

Rule of convenience question: "To A for life, then to my children equally." If grantor has only one child when A dies the child takes in FSA because once he was entitled the class closed. It doesn't matter that grantor could technically have more kids, right?

Yes, I think what you said is correct.

From rule statement in one of the barbri books: "Under the rule of convenience, which applies absent a will provision to the contrary, when a testator makes an outright gift to a class, if any members of the class are alive at the testator's death, the class closes at that time."

[Kage3212]

After doing a bunch of the essays, I've started doing a modified CIRAC, which includes a full facts paragraph (CIRFAC).

I like it because, based on my self grading, I typically end up with more points because it's more likely that I have included whatever facts they deem appropriate.

It ends up looking like this:

1) Conclusion, Issue
2) Rule
3) Facts ("Here, ... [basically retelling all parts of the story that I think could conceivably be relevant]")
4) Application ("Applying the rule to these facts, ....")
5) Conclusion (one sentence, "Thus ...")

I know it is important to the graders that you follow CIRAC or something similar. Does anyone see a downside to modifying CIRAC like this?

Wouldnt this result in typing out the same sentences twice? You would type out once in your fact section, and then type out the same exact facts in your application section. I always thought you do stuff like "As articulated in the rule, here we have malice aforethought because the defendant pointed a loaded gun at the man's head and pulled the trigger. At the bare minimum, pointing a loaded gun at an individual's head presents an extreme indifference to the value of human life."

Just restating facts in an almost "statement of the facts section" seems to be a waste, but I would be curious to see what others think.

[xfer2013]

After doing a bunch of the essays, I've started doing a modified CIRAC, which includes a full facts paragraph (CIRFAC).

I like it because, based on my self grading, I typically end up with more points because it's more likely that I have included whatever facts they deem appropriate.

It ends up looking like this:

1) Conclusion, Issue
2) Rule
3) Facts ("Here, ... [basically retelling all parts of the story that I think could conceivably be relevant]")
4) Application ("Applying the rule to these facts, ....")
5) Conclusion (one sentence, "Thus ...")

I know it is important to the graders that you follow CIRAC or something similar. Does anyone see a downside to modifying CIRAC like this?

Wouldnt this result in typing out the same sentences twice? You would type out once in your fact section, and then type out the same exact facts in your application section. I always thought you do stuff like "As articulated in the rule, here we have malice aforethought because the defendant pointed a loaded gun at the man's head and pulled the trigger. At the bare minimum, pointing a loaded gun at an individual's head presents an extreme indifference to the value of human life."

Just restating facts in an almost "statement of the facts section" seems to be a waste, but I would be curious to see what others think.

It results in some repetition sometimes. I would say maybe 30% of the time I end up repeating. But when I do repeat, it's usually only like 2-3 sentences of the same stuff that is relevant to both questions. Where there is enough repetition to make it worthwhile, I copy and paste.

But yeah, your question is exactly why I wonder whether it's a good idea to do this. Theoretically, you don't get knocked for writing the wrong stuff, so if you include a full paragraph of facts, and only half of it is relevant, who cares. But on the other hand, I don't want to make it hard for the grader to find the stuff that gets me points.

My thought thus far has been that it isn't THAT hard to sort through an extra 4-6 sentences of facts (even where potentially repetitive), and that the benefit probably outweighs any detriment. But curious to hear other thoughts.