2017 February California Bar Exam

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:42 pm

blogger21 wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:
sittin_pretty wrote:
Got'eem wrote:On essay 2, did S have knowledge that a murder occurred in the condo? I thought he had no knowledge and was only the owner right after the murder took place. If there is no knowledge, then there cant be COA for fraud, right?


The murder was a rabbit hole fact. The real fraud issue was knowing about the parking space going away.


No, parking space was not material fact. $50 a month is not material. 20% decrease in value is.



Are you saying there was no duty to disclose the murder? Honest question. I was trying to look up the answer, but generally I don't think there is a duty at CL. She didn't ask him if there was a murder before she bought right? (sorry to beat a dead horse..I'm intrigued).


I understand there is the usual rule of caveat emptor, but some courts found that well selling stigmatized properties you have to disclose. California, for example, you and your real estate agent have an obligation to disclose murders. Even outside of that, Steve sold the property at $200,000 knowing that it was only worth $160,000 BECAUSE of the murders. You could argue it's not material, but you could argue it's material as well: either way you could write a good essay as long as you mention it in the essay and analyze them.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:46 pm

RickSanchez wrote:
blogger21 wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:
sittin_pretty wrote:
Got'eem wrote:On essay 2, did S have knowledge that a murder occurred in the condo? I thought he had no knowledge and was only the owner right after the murder took place. If there is no knowledge, then there cant be COA for fraud, right?


The murder was a rabbit hole fact. The real fraud issue was knowing about the parking space going away.


No, parking space was not material fact. $50 a month is not material. 20% decrease in value is.



Are you saying there was no duty to disclose the murder? Honest question. I was trying to look up the answer, but generally I don't think there is a duty at CL. She didn't ask him if there was a murder before she bought right? (sorry to beat a dead horse..I'm intrigued).


I understand there is the usual rule of caveat emptor, but some courts found that well selling stigmatized properties you have to disclose. California, for example, you and your real estate agent have an obligation to disclose murders. Even outside of that, Steve sold the property at $200,000 knowing that it was only worth $160,000 BECAUSE of the murders. You could argue it's not material, but you could argue it's material as well: either way you could write a good essay as long as you mention it in the essay and analyze them.


Look here:

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/violent-death-house-disclosed-92401.html

"In California, the case Reed v King paved the way for future stigmatized property lawsuits. In this case Reed bought a house that was the site of a multiple murder ten years earlier. The seller did not disclose the crime. The crucial question for the court was whether the stigma attached to the house affected its value or desirability in a sufficiently material manner, such that the seller had a duty to disclose it. The court decided that it did."

Penelopesharp

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:52 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Penelopesharp » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:50 pm

uh, did nobody mention that the SOF applies because it was a contract for conveyance of real property? And parking wasnt included as an essential term of the contract. Kinda makes it hard to argue fraud based on something that wasnt even in the contract and only resulted in $50/month in consequential damages.

Murder was def the material fact more significant.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:53 pm

Penelopesharp wrote:uh, did nobody mention that the SOF applies because it was a contract for conveyance of real property? And parking wasnt included as an essential term of the contract. Kinda makes it hard to argue fraud based on something that wasnt even in the contract and only resulted in $50/month in consequential damages.


This is a good point, but I think you could argue that the $50/month is a foreseeable consequential damage (or maybe even incidental?). But you are right, PER might prevent this part of the negotiation from being litigated.

Penelopesharp

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:52 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Penelopesharp » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:57 pm

RickSanchez wrote:
Penelopesharp wrote:uh, did nobody mention that the SOF applies because it was a contract for conveyance of real property? And parking wasnt included as an essential term of the contract. Kinda makes it hard to argue fraud based on something that wasnt even in the contract and only resulted in $50/month in consequential damages.


This is a good point, but I think you could argue that the $50/month is a foreseeable consequential damage (or maybe even incidental?). But you are right, PER might prevent this part of the negotiation from being litigated.


Yup, I said PER probably precludes this from being a "material misrepresentation" that allows for recission from the contract or damages based on the contract transaction.

SUPERFEVER

New
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:56 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby SUPERFEVER » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:16 am

Long time listener, first time caller...

Not saying this is correct, but this was my outline for #2:

Keeping in mind that the call of the question asked (1) if buyer was likely to succeed on her claim and (2) what remedies buyer had.

-Choice of law (quick)
-Formation (very quick)
-Fraud (as a defect in formation)
-Misrepresentation (as a defect) +Non-disclosure counting as a misrepresentation.
-Parol EV: because his comments about parking were oral and contemporaneous with the K.
-Fraud and Misrep as exceptions to Parole EV, because they're defects in formation.
-Short damages discussion re: her elective improvements that weren't needed because of any seller conduct.
-Restitution of Money
-Inadequate legal remedy (potentially because it's real estate)
-Recission
-Reformation (no)

User avatar
rcharter1978

Gold
Posts: 4275
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:17 am

RickSanchez wrote:Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much


Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:19 am

rcharter1978 wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much


Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!


Seriously, if they do that tomorrow I am just walking out (not really) :roll:

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:21 am

SUPERFEVER wrote:Long time listener, first time caller...

Not saying this is correct, but this was my outline for #2:

Keeping in mind that the call of the question asked (1) if buyer was likely to succeed on her claim and (2) what remedies buyer had.

-Choice of law (quick)
-Formation (very quick)
-Fraud (as a defect in formation)
-Misrepresentation (as a defect) +Non-disclosure counting as a misrepresentation.
-Parol EV: because his comments about parking were oral and contemporaneous with the K.
-Fraud and Misrep as exceptions to Parole EV, because they're defects in formation.
-Short damages discussion re: her elective improvements that weren't needed because of any seller conduct.
-Restitution of Money
-Inadequate legal remedy (potentially because it's real estate)
-Recission
-Reformation (no)


Looks solid. I think I spent more time on different remedies but forgot about PER and to actually mention "rescission" even though talked about reliance damage a lot (which would be based on rescission) :(

Penelopesharp

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:52 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Penelopesharp » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:28 am

SUPERFEVER wrote:Long time listener, first time caller...

Not saying this is correct, but this was my outline for #2:

Keeping in mind that the call of the question asked (1) if buyer was likely to succeed on her claim and (2) what remedies buyer had.

-Choice of law (quick)
-Formation (very quick)
-Fraud (as a defect in formation)
-Misrepresentation (as a defect) +Non-disclosure counting as a misrepresentation.
-Parol EV: because his comments about parking were oral and contemporaneous with the K.
-Fraud and Misrep as exceptions to Parole EV, because they're defects in formation.
-Short damages discussion re: her elective improvements that weren't needed because of any seller conduct.
-Restitution of Money
-Inadequate legal remedy (potentially because it's real estate)
-Recission
-Reformation (no)


Sounds like you pretty much nailed it. I think I managed to hit all the issues and remedies, but my analysis was a bit crap.

Penelopesharp

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:52 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Penelopesharp » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:34 am

rcharter1978 wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much


Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!


I thought the MBE day was way more hell than day 1. Not getting into specifics obviously, but didnt you guys notice the absence of multiple questions based on one fact pattern?

So many long fact patterns to analyze for each little question. Brutal. Just Brutal.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:45 am

Penelopesharp wrote:
rcharter1978 wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much


Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!


I thought the MBE day was way more hell than day 1. Not getting into specifics obviously, but didnt you guys notice the absence of multiple questions based on one fact pattern?

So many long fact patterns to analyze for each little question. Brutal. Just Brutal.


Yeah... as I review for tomorrow, I am find myself face palming about all the stupid choices I made today. But as is usually the case, you remember your mistakes more vividly than your success.

Rap Genius

New
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat May 21, 2016 2:56 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Rap Genius » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:06 am

Penelopesharp wrote:
rcharter1978 wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much


Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!


I thought the MBE day was way more hell than day 1. Not getting into specifics obviously, but didnt you guys notice the absence of multiple questions based on one fact pattern?

So many long fact patterns to analyze for each little question. Brutal. Just Brutal.


Not sure what you mean, but I did notice a few super long fact patterns. These were ones I started reading, hit the second paragraph and saw new ideas being presented, hit the third paragraph and saw yet new developments, thought about what I'm going to have for dinner... selected an answer and then moved on. There were two like this that I felt I wasted time on.

User avatar
unclepete

Bronze
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby unclepete » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:32 am

Alright so definitely think I`ll be making up for a 50-55 for Essay 2, after reading this thread.

So, on that note, what are people's BA/Corporations predictions? Do we think SEC is in play? Obviously everything is, but I'd like to give a proper amount of time to it.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:39 am

unclepete wrote:Alright so definitely think I`ll be making up for a 50-55 for Essay 2, after reading this thread.

So, on that note, what are people's BA/Corporations predictions? Do we think SEC is in play? Obviously everything is, but I'd like to give a proper amount of time to it.


Personally studying PR/BA together + Crim Law/Procedure + Civ Pro

Going to spend some time on con law and real property after.

I feel like that remedy question was a hybrid of tort/contract so I am guessing those are covered already, but who knows.

User avatar
elijah54594

New
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:05 am

RickSanchez wrote:Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much


*Buuuugh* Morty, quit focusing on the damn mortgage, ok? It's an alternative universe Morty. You can't control it. *buuuuggggh* I mean it's like you think this shit is objective

Distancebro23

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:04 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Distancebro23 » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:08 am

Prediction I believe tomorrow 3 plus 2 wild cards

As stated biz org (either a federal securities or partnership agency)

PR standalone

Civ Pro- pleadings or collateral estoppel res Judi against

Criminal law (murder, accomplice , conspiracy) and crim pro (6th amendment)

Torts-products liablity



quote="unclepete"]Alright so definitely think I`ll be making up for a 50-55 for Essay 2, after reading this thread.

So, on that note, what are people's BA/Corporations predictions? Do we think SEC is in play? Obviously everything is, but I'd like to give a proper amount of time to it.[/quote]
a male human wrote:This is the thread for discussing the administration of the California Bar Exam (CBX) or General Bar Exam (GBX) occurring in February, 2017.

The upcoming exam is special because it will be the last time the three-day format will be offered before the switch to the two-day format, unless policy changes again.

The statistics for 2016 July exam: 43% (third-lowest July pass rate on record, with the trend getting worse)
Summary of pass rates: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/4/docu ... 201607.pdf
STATE BAR ANNOUNCES RESULTS FOR JULY 2016 CALIFORNIA BAR EXAMINATION: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/T ... 01645.aspx

Previous threads that may be helpful, in reverse chronological order
2016 July: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=260090
2016 February: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=260833
2015 July: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=244425
2015 February: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=240022
2014 July: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=225140
2014 February: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=220409
2013 July: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=213457

Some potentially helpful resources in the next post.

LockBox

Bronze
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby LockBox » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:28 pm

Penelopesharp wrote:
rcharter1978 wrote:
RickSanchez wrote:Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much


Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!


I thought the MBE day was way more hell than day 1. Not getting into specifics obviously, but didnt you guys notice the absence of multiple questions based on one fact pattern?

So many long fact patterns to analyze for each little question. Brutal. Just Brutal.


If I understand you correctly, the practice of having multiple questions based on one fact pattern was discontinued several years ago, I believe. So yes, it is more of a hellish day because reading comp plays that much of a bigger role. Good luck today!

ledv

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ledv » Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:31 pm

I feel sick.

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Thu Feb 23, 2017 4:32 pm

Almost over

Penelopesharp

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 3:52 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Penelopesharp » Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:09 pm

Well, wasn't that a FUN morning?! Home stretch guys. Almost over!

sittin_pretty

New
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:27 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby sittin_pretty » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:56 pm

We did it!!!!!!!
We just took the California bar exam!!!!!

The Pasadena testing room burst out into a big cheer at the end. Did that happen everywhere?

HAPPY THING #1: WE DON'T HAVE TO STUDY TONIGHT!
HAPPY THING #2: THEY DIDN'T TEST PROPERTY LAW!
HAPPY THING #3: IT'S OVER!

User avatar
RickSanchez

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:59 pm

sittin_pretty wrote:HAPPY THING #2: THEY DIDN'T TEST PROPERTY LAW!


Pretty much the best thing that happened to me this year

MMCheung

New
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:16 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby MMCheung » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:22 pm

I know I'm being a little obsessive here since I am free but still thinking about the bar. But can't get the last PT out of mind bc.... did we need to craft, prove, and apply the rule using the cases we were given??? I haven't encountered that type of exercise before on any practice PTs I've done. Anyway... that's what I did!

MMCheung

New
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:16 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby MMCheung » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:24 pm

sittin_pretty wrote:We did it!!!!!!!
We just took the California bar exam!!!!!

The Pasadena testing room burst out into a big cheer at the end. Did that happen everywhere?

HAPPY THING #1: WE DON'T HAVE TO STUDY TONIGHT!
HAPPY THING #2: THEY DIDN'T TEST PROPERTY LAW!
HAPPY THING #3: IT'S OVER!


YAY! I was at Pasadena too, and I was hoping we would have a fun group, and we did!



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gom.sa, Got'eem, Raheemat1, sproutz and 31 guests