2017 July California Bar

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

New
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby nsv » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:44 pm

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.

Sunny1211

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Sunny1211 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:46 pm

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

AcidaliaPlanitia

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:45 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby AcidaliaPlanitia » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:48 pm

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

User avatar
RoccoPan

New
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:43 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby RoccoPan » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:49 pm

Does tomorrow start at the same time as today did (be there by 8:30)?

AcidaliaPlanitia

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:45 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby AcidaliaPlanitia » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:52 pm

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?

yost

Bronze
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby yost » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:54 pm

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.

scubasteve2

New
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:17 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby scubasteve2 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:55 pm

when are we supposed to be there tomorrow? stranded in ontario at a hotel where everyone is taking the exam yet nobody is around

Sunny1211

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Sunny1211 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:57 pm

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

mcmand

Silver
Posts: 723
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:45 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby mcmand » Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:00 am

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.

justanotheruser

Bronze
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justanotheruser » Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:02 am

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.

Sunny1211

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Sunny1211 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:10 am

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

User avatar
RoccoPan

New
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:43 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby RoccoPan » Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:14 am

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?

Sunny1211

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Sunny1211 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:16 am

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

AcidaliaPlanitia

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:45 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby AcidaliaPlanitia » Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:24 am

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.

nsv

New
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby nsv » Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:56 am

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

netrag

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby netrag » Wed Jul 26, 2017 2:42 am

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.

User avatar
elijah54594

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby elijah54594 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:08 am

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?!

lsatextreme

Silver
Posts: 532
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:18 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby lsatextreme » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:28 pm

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.

User avatar
Dee099

New
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:30 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Dee099 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:54 pm

So CA decided to do 100 experimental questions I see.

yost

Bronze
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby yost » Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:02 pm

That was definitely tougher than I expected

User avatar
CAnow

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby CAnow » Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:05 pm

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.

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:17 pm

Weird MPT and harder than usual MBE. I think I am f... Lol

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 710
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:31 pm

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 ?

varcom24

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby varcom24 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:44 pm

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

Pearl

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:12 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Pearl » Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:04 pm

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.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fadedgreyx and 33 guests