2017 July California Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
User avatar
whats an updog

Bronze
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:12 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby whats an updog » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:18 pm

Pearl wrote: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.


very confused as to all the above regarding the condo. wouldn't the special community property presumption have applied on divorce? i.e. on divorce any jointly titled property is presumptively considered CP unless rebutted in the deed or a separate express writing. therefore, it would have been CP because no writing existed to keep it as SP. there might have been some sort of undue influence argument because W was an accountant who insisted on the transfer, but that seemed like a failing argument. very well could be wrong, drunk now

lsatextreme wrote: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.


I also put plenary power. Do they not have plenary power? Oh well. I am pretty sure I bombed the MBE after feeling pretty good about the essays

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:32 pm

whats an updog wrote:
Pearl wrote: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.


very confused as to all the above regarding the condo. wouldn't the special community property presumption have applied on divorce? i.e. on divorce any jointly titled property is presumptively considered CP unless rebutted in the deed or a separate express writing. therefore, it would have been CP because no writing existed to keep it as SP. there might have been some sort of undue influence argument because W was an accountant who insisted on the transfer, but that seemed like a failing argument. very well could be wrong, drunk now

lsatextreme wrote: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.


I also put plenary power. Do they not have plenary power? Oh well. I am pretty sure I bombed the MBE after feeling pretty good about the essays

That is Lucas and Anti Lucas.
I think plenary power over DC is right.

Sunny1211

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Sunny1211 » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:33 pm

Fuck this whole exam is a fucking scam

bacillusanthracis

New
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 1:30 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby bacillusanthracis » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:37 pm

CAnow wrote:
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.


This^.

Good god. Leading up to today, I literally did thousands of MBE questions (2,000+ between Adaptibar and Barbri). But today was about 150 WTF questions.

My experience has been that when I feel like an MBE practice exam is easy, my scores tend to suck. When I'm uncertain when the practice test is over, it usually means I did well. "Uncertainty" doesn't even begin to describe today's all-out assault on what I thought I knew or how I thought I would perform in this section.

All I wanted was to go into the second day feeling good, and that's exactly what happened. Day 1 went really well for me, and then today was a f'ing bloodbath.

I can handle not passing. I'm mentally prepared for it. The question is though, if this is what the MBE looks like now, how the hell do you prepare for it?

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:51 pm

bacillusanthracis wrote:
CAnow wrote:
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.


This^.

Good god. Leading up to today, I literally did thousands of MBE questions (2,000+ between Adaptibar and Barbri). But today was about 150 WTF questions.

My experience has been that when I feel like an MBE practice exam is easy, my scores tend to suck. When I'm uncertain when the practice test is over, it usually means I did well. "Uncertainty" doesn't even begin to describe today's all-out assault on what I thought I knew or how I thought I would perform in this section.

All I wanted was to go into the second day feeling good, and that's exactly what happened. Day 1 went really well for me, and then today was a f'ing bloodbath.

I can handle not passing. I'm mentally prepared for it. The question is though, if this is what the MBE looks like now, how the hell do you prepare for it?

Agree 100,% MBE is hard as if they are working with CA bar examiner. My hope MBE will carry me over the line seems to be very unrealistic.

nsv

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby nsv » Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:59 pm

MBEs on the second part were very tricky... The answer choices really required you to know the nuances.

User avatar
qapla

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:14 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby qapla » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:06 am

Sunny1211 wrote:
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


I'm pretty sure the condo subQ was asking about whether a valid transmutation occurred. Whether changing title to joint form is sufficient to alter the characterization from W's SP to CP. The answer is no. Any writing signed by W with express declaration of intent to change character would be sufficient. It was her SP at division. Unless I'm cray, which is totally possible at this point TBH.

Btw I love this convo. It's really calming for me to hear what everyone was thinking in detail because it shows how many people take different approaches and probably many of them will score some or many points. Whether or not I got things right, I need the reality check! I need these positive vibes after the glorious 2-day beating.

spacedandy

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:18 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby spacedandy » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:08 am

That MBE set was bizarre. There were some questions that even after I answered and moved on I still had no idea if I had just answered a Property or Contracts question. And I'm sure this is my imagination but it felt like there were at least 90 civ pro questions.

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:12 am

qapla wrote:
Sunny1211 wrote:
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


I'm pretty sure the condo subQ was asking about whether a valid transmutation occurred. Whether changing title to joint form is sufficient to alter the characterization from W's SP to CP. The answer is no. Any writing signed by W with express declaration of intent to change character would be sufficient. It was her SP at division. Unless I'm cray, which is totally possible at this point TBH.

Btw I love this convo. It's really calming for me to hear what everyone was thinking in detail because it shows how many people take different approaches and probably many of them will score some or many points. Whether or not I got things right, I need the reality check! I need these positive vibes after the glorious 2-day beating.

I think valid transmutation is about the Van. And possible personal gift exception to written transmutation.

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:13 am

spacedandy wrote:That MBE set was bizarre. There were some questions that even after I answered and moved on I still had no idea if I had just answered a Property or Contracts question. And I'm sure this is my imagination but it felt like there were at least 90 civ pro questions.

I found property and Kx are on the easy side. Buy Con law and Cover Pro are extremely difficult for me.

User avatar
whats an updog

Bronze
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:12 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby whats an updog » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:32 am

Agreed with all the above about the MBE being a blood bath. I probably guessed on the large majority of questions between two answers, a few I couldn't even narrow it beyond three answers. On the rare instance I came across one I knew (at least hopefully), it was like a cool glass of water in a desert. Did not know wtf was going on, hopefully I was able to eliminate some by checking off the wrong answers (e.g. the toy airplane venuquestion).

User avatar
CAnow

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby CAnow » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:41 am

The sad thing is all the articles that came out about how the February 2017 MBE scores were an all time low. How does the NCBE respond - by making it even more difficult?

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:43 am

CAnow wrote:The sad thing is all the articles that came out about how the February 2017 MBE scores were an all time low. How does the NCBE respond - by making it even more difficult?

I took Feb bar. This MBE is much harder than Feb, the sheer reading volume is at least 30% higher than Feb. The question stem is so long.

User avatar
Dee099

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

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Dee099 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:59 am

Barbri "you'll see one to two Summary Judgnent Qs"
MBE: here's 5000 of them

Lol I didn't know what dispositive meant

At one point I filled in 5 "D" bubbles in a row, almost cried when I saw that.

A state can require public schools at some point Btwn elementary and HS


There was one evidence Q that was alone 1 full page long, lol wtf

It's over, I honestly don't know anyone that said, I feel like I'm gonna pass, everyone just shared that notion of, "I just put my head down, answered the best I could, wrote the best I could and when I looked up 3 hours flew"

I hope we all pass and move on

maxmartin

Silver
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby maxmartin » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:03 am

Dee099 wrote:Barbri "you'll see one to two Summary Judgnent Qs"
MBE: here's 5000 of them

Lol I didn't know what dispositive meant

At one point I filled in 5 "D" bubbles in a row, almost cried when I saw that.

A state can require public schools at some point Btwn elementary and HS


There was one evidence Q that was alone 1 full page long, lol wtf

It's over, I honestly don't know anyone that said, I feel like I'm gonna pass, everyone just shared that notion of, "I just put my head down, answered the best I could, wrote the best I could and when I looked up 3 hours flew"

I hope we all pass and move on

I also had 5D of the last 5questions in the afternoon session

User avatar
whats an updog

Bronze
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:12 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby whats an updog » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:05 am

Dee099 wrote:Barbri "you'll see one to two Summary Judgnent Qs"
MBE: here's 5000 of them

Lol I didn't know what dispositive meant

At one point I filled in 5 "D" bubbles in a row, almost cried when I saw that.

A state can require public schools at some point Btwn elementary and HS


There was one evidence Q that was alone 1 full page long, lol wtf

It's over, I honestly don't know anyone that said, I feel like I'm gonna pass, everyone just shared that notion of, "I just put my head down, answered the best I could, wrote the best I could and when I looked up 3 hours flew"

I hope we all pass and move on


yo, so many Ds and also sets of 3s of Cs and As too. made me think i for sure fucked up. even went back and checked some, but sometimes you either know the answer or you don't. and if you don't, you just gotta guess. shit show, blood bath, whatever you call it, the NCBE and the bar exam as a whole is a dumb fucking scam. it is not a proper test of one's ability to practice the law. not by a long shot. and 4 months to determine the score? jesus, what year are we living in

jman77

Silver
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:33 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby jman77 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:08 am

whats an updog wrote:
Pearl wrote: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.


very confused as to all the above regarding the condo. wouldn't the special community property presumption have applied on divorce? i.e. on divorce any jointly titled property is presumptively considered CP unless rebutted in the deed or a separate express writing. therefore, it would have been CP because no writing existed to keep it as SP. there might have been some sort of undue influence argument because W was an accountant who insisted on the transfer, but that seemed like a failing argument. very well could be wrong, drunk now

lsatextreme wrote: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.


I also put plenary power. Do they not have plenary power? Oh well. I am pretty sure I bombed the MBE after feeling pretty good about the essays


Plenary power is a better answer - you don't even have to get into an analysis as to the aggregate effects, etc. Congress can pretty much do anything on federal lands, DC, etc. Also, having taken the MBE in NY a few years ago, I can say that today's MBE was significantly tougher. I was hoping my MBE would put me in auto-pass territory like in NY, but I'm not too sure now (in NY I was pretty certain I was going to pass after the MBE day). Thankfully, I think I did fairly decently yesterday.
Last edited by jman77 on Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sunny1211

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Sunny1211 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:08 am

Dee099 wrote:Barbri "you'll see one to two Summary Judgnent Qs"
MBE: here's 5000 of them

Lol I didn't know what dispositive meant

At one point I filled in 5 "D" bubbles in a row, almost cried when I saw that.

A state can require public schools at some point Btwn elementary and HS


There was one evidence Q that was alone 1 full page long, lol wtf

It's over, I honestly don't know anyone that said, I feel like I'm gonna pass, everyone just shared that notion of, "I just put my head down, answered the best I could, wrote the best I could and when I looked up 3 hours flew"

I hope we all pass and move on



Yes! The first Question during the PM.... I put 911 is not testimony and all others excluded..... I felt like PM was easier than the morning... answers were mostly the rule statements reworded....I expected way more Assignment/Delegation K questions

Xochi

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:03 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Xochi » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:13 am

Dee099 wrote:Barbri "you'll see one to two Summary Judgnent Qs"
MBE: here's 5000 of them

Lol I didn't know what dispositive meant

At one point I filled in 5 "D" bubbles in a row, almost cried when I saw that.

A state can require public schools at some point Btwn elementary and HS


There was one evidence Q that was alone 1 full page long, lol wtf

It's over, I honestly don't know anyone that said, I feel like I'm gonna pass, everyone just shared that notion of, "I just put my head down, answered the best I could, wrote the best I could and when I looked up 3 hours flew"

I hope we all pass and move on


I just laughed at this so hard. Not sure if it's cause I'm delirious and it pretty accurately reflects my tattered post-exam mindstate or what buuuuut thanks man
Last edited by Xochi on Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 1971
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:14 am

We had a string of seven (7) Ds back in 2014. Very disconcerting.

Hangastaronit

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:50 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Hangastaronit » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:16 am

bacillusanthracis wrote:
CAnow wrote:
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.


This^.

Good god. Leading up to today, I literally did thousands of MBE questions (2,000+ between Adaptibar and Barbri). But today was about 150 WTF questions.

My experience has been that when I feel like an MBE practice exam is easy, my scores tend to suck. When I'm uncertain when the practice test is over, it usually means I did well. "Uncertainty" doesn't even begin to describe today's all-out assault on what I thought I knew or how I thought I would perform in this section.

All I wanted was to go into the second day feeling good, and that's exactly what happened. Day 1 went really well for me, and then today was a f'ing bloodbath.

I can handle not passing. I'm mentally prepared for it. The question is though, if this is what the MBE looks like now, how the hell do you prepare for it?


Could not agree more ^ Did a similar amount of practice questions, followed Barbri religiously, and felt good coming out of Day 1. Day 2 left me frustrated and demoralized. A complete bloodbath. Civ Pro and Con Law were nothing like what I had focused on ahead of the exam. If Barbri and nearly 2,000 practice questions isn't enough to pass, what is?

I am telling myself that the increase in experimental questions (25 out of 200) may have something to do with it? Can others confirm that this MBE was harder than Feb/other past exam?

Sunny1211

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Sunny1211 » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:30 am

This is my third fuckin time I'm taking it.... and I've put 150% of my effor into it.... such a shitty feeling.... it's definitely part luck I feel like

User avatar
BenjarvusGreenEllis

New
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby BenjarvusGreenEllis » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:38 am

I second (fourth?) the 5 Ds in a row.

Also, don't think a judge needs to say anything for summary judgement (based on a an AdaptiBar question).

User avatar
whats an updog

Bronze
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:12 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby whats an updog » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:42 am

does a judge need to give detailed opinions as to law and fact for summary judgment? can a judge order summary judgment and then vacate and amend later? can a judge do lickity splits while ordering summary judgment? can a judge affect summary judgment even though the defendant winked twice? what's the standard of review on winking? substantial error? jk that's not a thing, but then again maybe it is

ohnowhattodo

New
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 8:30 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby ohnowhattodo » Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:00 am

Coconspirators statement? Dying declaration? Present sense impression? Mental state? No idea on that one.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mrro and 27 guests