Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:58 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
BVest wrote:
mvp99 wrote:What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?


Creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisor, despite not being a party. Donee beneficiary cannot.


I think you mean the creditor beneficiary can enforce against the promisee but a donee cannot. A donee beneficiary can enforce rights against the promisor if it's rights have vested.


Thanks. So if promisee says to promisor to pay the money to the creditor, but promisee fails under the K to perform a condition precedent to the promisor's duty to pay creditor, creditor can enforce the K against the promisee? And If the intended beneficiary was a donee, donee could not enforce the K against the promisee but once promisee performs, and promisor's duty is due, the donee may sue, correct?

ellewoods123

Bronze
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ellewoods123 » Wed Jul 20, 2016 2:29 pm

mvp99 wrote:
LionelHutzJD wrote:
BVest wrote:
mvp99 wrote:What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?


Creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisor, despite not being a party. Donee beneficiary cannot.


I think you mean the creditor beneficiary can enforce against the promisee but a donee cannot. A donee beneficiary can enforce rights against the promisor if it's rights have vested.


Thanks. So if promisee says to promisor to pay the money to the creditor, but promisee fails under the K to perform a condition precedent to the promisor's duty to pay creditor, creditor can enforce the K against the promisee? And If the intended beneficiary was a donee, donee could not enforce the K against the promisee but once promisee performs, and promisor's duty is due, the donee may sue, correct?


That's how I understand it, yes.

0lol

New
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 11:03 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby 0lol » Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:34 pm

can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:47 pm

0lol wrote:can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?


Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

0lol

New
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 11:03 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby 0lol » Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:57 pm

mvp99 wrote:
0lol wrote:can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?


Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

ive spent hours on it and still dont get it at all

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ballouttacontrol » Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:09 pm

0lol wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
0lol wrote:can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?


Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

ive spent hours on it and still dont get it at all


Tbh, I'm somewhat with you. But, supplemental jurisdxn is already like really fucking complex and ambiguous. So I really don't think the bar is gonna test on it to any significant extent.

I, personally as in just my opinion here, think if u know what barbri says in its materials, that should be enough for the bar exam. Honestly I think an mbe Q would only test on the most basic application of it. SuppJxn was 50℅ of my 1L CivPro exam bc it's so jacked up and confusing and there's no way the bar exam can get that into the weeds on it

Just my humble opinion here

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LionelHutzJD » Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:41 pm

ballouttacontrol wrote:
0lol wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
0lol wrote:can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?


Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

ive spent hours on it and still dont get it at all


Tbh, I'm somewhat with you. But, supplemental jurisdxn is already like really fucking complex and ambiguous. So I really don't think the bar is gonna test on it to any significant extent.

I, personally as in just my opinion here, think if u know what barbri says in its materials, that should be enough for the bar exam. Honestly I think an mbe Q would only test on the most basic application of it. SuppJxn was 50℅ of my 1L CivPro exam bc it's so jacked up and confusing and there's no way the bar exam can get that into the weeds on it

Just my humble opinion here


Supplemental Jurisdiction is a heavily tested area in Civil Procedure. I'm not trying to be a dick, just want to make sure you put adequate time into understanding it.

If you're having trouble I recommend going back to Freer's lecture if you're doing Barbri,or if you're not doing Barbri, try to get your hands on his lecture another way. He lays out the test for S-JXN and gives many examples.

User avatar
Rahviveh

Gold
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby Rahviveh » Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:47 pm

ballouttacontrol wrote:
0lol wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
0lol wrote:can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?


Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

ive spent hours on it and still dont get it at all


Tbh, I'm somewhat with you. But, supplemental jurisdxn is already like really fucking complex and ambiguous. So I really don't think the bar is gonna test on it to any significant extent.

I, personally as in just my opinion here, think if u know what barbri says in its materials, that should be enough for the bar exam. Honestly I think an mbe Q would only test on the most basic application of it. SuppJxn was 50℅ of my 1L CivPro exam bc it's so jacked up and confusing and there's no way the bar exam can get that into the weeds on it

Just my humble opinion here


Friend, you do not seem ready to enter our esteemed profession.

0lol

New
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 11:03 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby 0lol » Wed Jul 20, 2016 10:53 pm

Rahviveh wrote:Friend, you do not seem ready to enter our esteemed profession.

fuck off

thats not appropriate itt

wise4

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby wise4 » Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:33 pm

0lol wrote:can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?


Piggy backing state claims (of the plaintiff or compulsory counterclaims) that arise out of the same transactions and occurances of the claim already in federal court.


The trick:

Its completely discretionary these state claims will not come in automatically (besides th compulsory cc).The judge may allow the state claims to come in by weighing four different factors.

Like the above poster said, I don't think supplemental is a big deal. Removal jurdx seems to pop up more on the practice questions. A lot of factors go into removal jurdx.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ballouttacontrol » Wed Jul 20, 2016 11:52 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:
0lol wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
0lol wrote:can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?


Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

ive spent hours on it and still dont get it at all


Tbh, I'm somewhat with you. But, supplemental jurisdxn is already like really fucking complex and ambiguous. So I really don't think the bar is gonna test on it to any significant extent.

I, personally as in just my opinion here, think if u know what barbri says in its materials, that should be enough for the bar exam. Honestly I think an mbe Q would only test on the most basic application of it. SuppJxn was 50℅ of my 1L CivPro exam bc it's so jacked up and confusing and there's no way the bar exam can get that into the weeds on it

Just my humble opinion here


Supplemental Jurisdiction is a heavily tested area in Civil Procedure. I'm not trying to be a dick, just want to make sure you put adequate time into understanding it.

If you're having trouble I recommend going back to Freer's lecture if you're doing Barbri,or if you're not doing Barbri, try to get your hands on his lecture another way. He lays out the test for S-JXN and gives many examples.


I'm not suggesting skipping it. I'm suggesting that what Freer/barbri materials gives us is enough for the bar exam. Freer does not cover all of suppjxn, for example, he does not even touch 1367c.

I haven't seen any complex issues of supp Jxn tested in my studying, which is probably why barbri glosses over it.

User avatar
Rahviveh

Gold
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby Rahviveh » Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:37 am

0lol wrote:
Rahviveh wrote:Friend, you do not seem ready to enter our esteemed profession.

fuck off

thats not appropriate itt

He's trolling us smart guy.

Near

New
Posts: 73
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:08 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby Near » Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:13 am

.
Last edited by Near on Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Itwasluck

New
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:23 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby Itwasluck » Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:47 am

Probably dumb question, but what is the difference between a discretionary trust and a spendthrift trust? Neither many be transferred by the beneficiary and neither provides creditors the ability to attach to the trust property. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LionelHutzJD » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:15 pm

Itwasluck wrote:Probably dumb question, but what is the difference between a discretionary trust and a spendthrift trust? Neither many be transferred by the beneficiary and neither provides creditors the ability to attach to the trust property. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!


Not a dumb question at all. They are quite similar.

A discretionary trust allows the trustee to make payments to the beneficiary in the trustees SOLE discretion. A trust instrument may not have discretionary language but spendthrift language. If the trust does not have discretionary language then it may be the case that the trustee MUST provide income to the beneficiary (there could be a support provision). Whenever the trustee provides income, that income is reachable by the creditors of the beneficiary.

I hope this helps. Also, you have the most important aspect down. Creditors cannot reach income that the beneficiary himself cannot reach.

Itwasluck

New
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 5:23 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby Itwasluck » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:28 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
Itwasluck wrote:Probably dumb question, but what is the difference between a discretionary trust and a spendthrift trust? Neither many be transferred by the beneficiary and neither provides creditors the ability to attach to the trust property. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!


Not a dumb question at all. They are quite similar.

A discretionary trust allows the trustee to make payments to the beneficiary in the trustees SOLE discretion. A trust instrument may not have discretionary language but spendthrift language. If the trust does not have discretionary language then it may be the case that the trustee MUST provide income to the beneficiary (there could be a support provision). Whenever the trustee provides income, that income is reachable by the creditors of the beneficiary.

I hope this helps. Also, you have the most important aspect down. Creditors cannot reach income that the beneficiary himself cannot reach.


Awesome. Thanks a lot. This is exactly what I was looking for.

User avatar
Calvin Murphy

Bronze
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:58 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby Calvin Murphy » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:31 pm

My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:50 pm

Calvin Murphy wrote:My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.


I knew this rule but now it got me thinking, does it apply to partnerships?

User avatar
Calvin Murphy

Bronze
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:58 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby Calvin Murphy » Thu Jul 21, 2016 12:56 pm

mvp99 wrote:
Calvin Murphy wrote:My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.


I knew this rule but now it got me thinking, does it apply to partnerships?


Good question. I'm guessing that it depends who is named. If the partners are named individually, then no; however, if the partnership is named then yes.

Just a guess, though.

User avatar
BVest

Platinum
Posts: 7888
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby BVest » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:08 pm

Calvin Murphy wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
Calvin Murphy wrote:My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.


I knew this rule but now it got me thinking, does it apply to partnerships?


Good question. I'm guessing that it depends who is named. If the partners are named individually, then no; however, if the partnership is named then yes.

Just a guess, though.


No. A partnership is a citizen of each state in which a partner is located. Example Death Star, L.P. is made of partners Kenneth Lay of Missouri, Jeffrey Skilling of Pennsylvania, and Enron Corp. Enron is a Delaware Corp with its principle place of business in Texas. Death Star is a citizen of Missouri, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Texas.
Last edited by BVest on Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:09 pm

Calvin Murphy wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
Calvin Murphy wrote:My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.


I knew this rule but now it got me thinking, does it apply to partnerships?


Good question. I'm guessing that it depends who is named. If the partners are named individually, then no; however, if the partnership is named then yes.

Just a guess, though.


for smj a partnership is a citizen of each state in which the partners (limited or general) are domiciled. But I'm wondering if for venue this changes also to anywhere where there is PJ with respect to the action.

User avatar
Calvin Murphy

Bronze
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:58 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby Calvin Murphy » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:34 pm

mvp99 wrote:
Calvin Murphy wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
Calvin Murphy wrote:My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.


I knew this rule but now it got me thinking, does it apply to partnerships?


Good question. I'm guessing that it depends who is named. If the partners are named individually, then no; however, if the partnership is named then yes.

Just a guess, though.


for smj a partnership is a citizen of each state in which the partners (limited or general) are domiciled. But I'm wondering if for venue this changes also to anywhere where there is PJ with respect to the action.


That's what I'm talking about. Obviously the rule that BVest outlined is correct for purposes of determining citizenship for the inquiry of SMJ. As far as PJ goes, I'm guessing that a partnership can be hailed into court anywhere that it has engaged in regular, systematic, continuous business.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ballouttacontrol » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:47 pm

Property Set 5, Question #10.

Landowner devises campground in her will "to my niece, her heirs, and assigns, so long as it used for camping and recreational purposes; if used for any other purpose during her lifetime, then to the Girl Scouts of America."

The second clause does not violate RAP because it's limited to Niece's lifetime. But WHY doesn't the determinable clause get stricken?? I thought it would become this because of the RAP violation:

"to my niece, her heirs, and assigns, so long as it used for camping and recreational purposes; if used for any other purpose during her lifetime, then to the Girl Scouts of America."

But the answer says that the neices will have a fee simple determinable. WTF WHY?????

ellewoods123

Bronze
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ellewoods123 » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:49 pm

LionelHutzJD wrote:
Itwasluck wrote:Probably dumb question, but what is the difference between a discretionary trust and a spendthrift trust? Neither many be transferred by the beneficiary and neither provides creditors the ability to attach to the trust property. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!


Not a dumb question at all. They are quite similar.

A discretionary trust allows the trustee to make payments to the beneficiary in the trustees SOLE discretion. A trust instrument may not have discretionary language but spendthrift language. If the trust does not have discretionary language then it may be the case that the trustee MUST provide income to the beneficiary (there could be a support provision). Whenever the trustee provides income, that income is reachable by the creditors of the beneficiary.

I hope this helps. Also, you have the most important aspect down. Creditors cannot reach income that the beneficiary himself cannot reach.



This was helpful! Am I misunderstanding, if a trust does NOT contain a spendthrift clause, then can a creditor ATTACH a beneficiary's interest, but not compel payment until the trustee actually exercises discretion to make payment to the beneficiary? is that correct?

criminaltheory

Bronze
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby criminaltheory » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:57 pm

ballouttacontrol wrote:Property Set 5, Question #10.

Landowner devises campground in her will "to my niece, her heirs, and assigns, so long as it used for camping and recreational purposes; if used for any other purpose during her lifetime, then to the Girl Scouts of America."

The second clause does not violate RAP because it's limited to Niece's lifetime. But WHY doesn't the determinable clause get stricken?? I thought it would become this because of the RAP violation:

"to my niece, her heirs, and assigns, so long as it used for camping and recreational purposes; if used for any other purpose during her lifetime, then to the Girl Scouts of America."

But the answer says that the neices will have a fee simple determinable. WTF WHY?????


I think it's because the remainderman on the first clause is the grantor. The GSA's interest terminates on the expiration of "her lifetime," but the "so long as" remains. If the grantor wanted to terminate the condition completely, it would have been written more like "to my niece, her heirs, and assigns, but if used for any purpose other than camping and recreation during niece's lifetime, then to the Girl Scouts of America."



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 12 guests