2017 July California Bar
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
i know everyone wants to compare how they did but don't let it bring you down for tomorrow. MBEs are worth 50%, you can make a lot of loss ground tomorrow. i'm in the same boat as all of you, I still think i missed something on the first call of the civ pro question...and probably did.
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Dee099 wrote:I spent way too much time on the per se aspect knowing Harry knew damn well he wasn't part of the class intended to be protected nor the the type of harm intented to prevent
Also can someone tell me if trying to avoid Probate raised an issue for Comm prop
I just said it goes to show the intent for the collateral agreement - JT title - to change the condo from SP to CP since they didn't have an express agreement
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:45 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
CAnow wrote:Received this orange card at the end of the exam:
"You must upload all four (4) exam answer files by 12:00 noon Thursday July 27, 2017"
Four???
In SD they mentioned that this was a mistake because there used to be 2 days of essays, therefore 4 exam files
- RoccoPan
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:43 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Does tomorrow start at the same time as today did (be there by 8:30)?
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:45 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Did anyone else mention on the Community Property essay that the attempted transfer from sole title to joint tenancy would have failed without a strawman, because joint tenancy requires unity of time?
-
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
nsv wrote:i know everyone wants to compare how they did but don't let it bring you down for tomorrow. MBEs are worth 50%, you can make a lot of loss ground tomorrow. i'm in the same boat as all of you, I still think i missed something on the first call of the civ pro question...and probably did.
If it makes you feel better, my answer was super short. Basically: plaintiff can join as many claims as he has against defendant, regardless of whether or not they are related. There must also be PJ and SMJ with respect to both claims, which I believe there was. The end.
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:17 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
when are we supposed to be there tomorrow? stranded in ontario at a hotel where everyone is taking the exam yet nobody is around
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
nsv wrote:i know everyone wants to compare how they did but don't let it bring you down for tomorrow. MBEs are worth 50%, you can make a lot of loss ground tomorrow. i'm in the same boat as all of you, I still think i missed something on the first call of the civ pro question...and probably did.
I got screwed on the Joinder of Claims too.... I talked about Compulsory Joinder and Permissive FML
-
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:45 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
ManoftheHour wrote:Edit: Aight I'm gonna stop reading this stuff. I left the exam feeling pretty good and now I'm starting to have doubts. Need to focus on the MBE tomorrow.
Good plan. This rapidly became an unhealthy thread.

Last edited by mcmand on Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
yost wrote:nsv wrote:i know everyone wants to compare how they did but don't let it bring you down for tomorrow. MBEs are worth 50%, you can make a lot of loss ground tomorrow. i'm in the same boat as all of you, I still think i missed something on the first call of the civ pro question...and probably did.
If it makes you feel better, my answer was super short. Basically: plaintiff can join as many claims as he has against defendant, regardless of whether or not they are related. There must also be PJ and SMJ with respect to both claims, which I believe there was. The end.
Yeah, I may have botched this too. I wasn't sure what to talk about, so I talked about how not bringing the claims together might lead to res judicata issues down the line. Eh.
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
I swear the CP problem was ridiculous..... got me completely off guard....nothing really fit into a category.... mostly talked about commingled funds and tracing
- RoccoPan
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:43 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
scubasteve2 wrote:when are we supposed to be there tomorrow? stranded in ontario at a hotel where everyone is taking the exam yet nobody is around
Did you find out the answer to this?
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
AcidaliaPlanitia wrote:Did anyone else mention on the Community Property essay that the attempted transfer from sole title to joint tenancy would have failed without a strawman, because joint tenancy requires unity of time?
wait I said the transfer of title into JT made was a collateral agreement to rebut the SP gift presumption since the condo was a gift to him during marriage
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:45 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Sunny1211 wrote:AcidaliaPlanitia wrote:Did anyone else mention on the Community Property essay that the attempted transfer from sole title to joint tenancy would have failed without a strawman, because joint tenancy requires unity of time?
wait I said the transfer of title into JT made was a collateral agreement to rebut the SP gift presumption since the condo was a gift to him during marriage
That's pretty much where I went with it too. Just mentioned after the fact that at common law you couldn't create a joint tenancy by having a husband transfer title to himself and his wife as joint tenants, because you need unity of time. I don't think it changes the analysis because I think "jointly titled" for the CP rules includes tenancy in common as well as joint tenancy.
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
RoccoPan wrote:scubasteve2 wrote:when are we supposed to be there tomorrow? stranded in ontario at a hotel where everyone is taking the exam yet nobody is around
Did you find out the answer to this?
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Exa ... xamination
8:20
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:24 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
AcidaliaPlanitia wrote:Sunny1211 wrote:AcidaliaPlanitia wrote:Did anyone else mention on the Community Property essay that the attempted transfer from sole title to joint tenancy would have failed without a strawman, because joint tenancy requires unity of time?
wait I said the transfer of title into JT made was a collateral agreement to rebut the SP gift presumption since the condo was a gift to him during marriage
That's pretty much where I went with it too. Just mentioned after the fact that at common law you couldn't create a joint tenancy by having a husband transfer title to himself and his wife as joint tenants, because you need unity of time. I don't think it changes the analysis because I think "jointly titled" for the CP rules includes tenancy in common as well as joint tenancy.
Yes, re: TIC. It didn't mention survivorship, so I didn't go that route, but I am sure that you will get a few points for discussing it.
- elijah54594
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
hatethelaw wrote:Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........
Oh baby nooo! WHAT is you doing?!
-
- Posts: 532
- Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:18 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
I must be the only fucking idiot who missed that aggregation of marijuana sales near school answer. I put plenary power over DC instead because for some reason I kept thinking about that other case the S Ct said no aggregate (was it gun sale near schools? Or something). Fuck.
- Dee099
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:30 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
So CA decided to do 100 experimental questions I see.
-
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
That was definitely tougher than I expected
- CAnow
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Dee099 wrote:So CA decided to do 100 experimental questions I see.
I think there were about five real ones in there. That's about how many of my answers I felt confident about.
-
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Weird MPT and harder than usual MBE. I think I am f... Lol
-
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Sunny1211 wrote:Also how did you guys analyze the transfer of Title of the condo into JT in the first question ?
I felt my analysis was super short each property
Is that Lucas Anti Lucas shit ?
-
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 6:30 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
maxmartin wrote:Sunny1211 wrote:Also how did you guys analyze the transfer of Title of the condo into JT in the first question ?
I felt my analysis was super short each property
Is that Lucas Anti Lucas shit ?
I assumed that lucas applied when title is taken jointly. figured it wouldn't if title was originally taken in only one spouses name
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:12 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
I thought so too: Lucas comes into play when the purchase is made with SP of one spouse or with part SP and part CP. Hal inherited his condo.
I was generous and gave Hal his the condo and the increased value of that Condo as well. However, my first thought was about Lucas too.
Now all Wendys and Hals, the jury, negligent drivers and BFPs with non-recorded mortgages are burning in my personal hell.
I was generous and gave Hal his the condo and the increased value of that Condo as well. However, my first thought was about Lucas too.
Now all Wendys and Hals, the jury, negligent drivers and BFPs with non-recorded mortgages are burning in my personal hell.
Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum�
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests