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