July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

FormerChild
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:41 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby FormerChild » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:36 am

RDA2930 wrote:Can anyone explain the difference between an irrevocable license (license coupled with an interest) and a profit easement?

Question 11 on Property Set 6 really doesn't make sense to me. What language in an agreement will make an irrevocable license/license coupled with an interest versus a profit easement? They seem like the same thing to me. I thought the whole analysis between license and profit/easement was that licenses are revocable at will; if a license is irrevocable, doesn't that just make it a profit/easement? Edit: Does it have something to do with whether it is written or not?


Yep exactly. Easement has to be in writing, if you see something that looks like an easement, walks like an easement and barks like an easement, but it's not in writing, it's a revocable license

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:43 am

FormerChild wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:Can anyone explain the difference between an irrevocable license (license coupled with an interest) and a profit easement?

Question 11 on Property Set 6 really doesn't make sense to me. What language in an agreement will make an irrevocable license/license coupled with an interest versus a profit easement? They seem like the same thing to me. I thought the whole analysis between license and profit/easement was that licenses are revocable at will; if a license is irrevocable, doesn't that just make it a profit/easement? Edit: Does it have something to do with whether it is written or not?


Yep exactly. Easement has to be in writing, if you see something that looks like an easement, walks like an easement and barks like an easement, but it's not in writing, it's a revocable license


So I get that part--I still don't understand why an irrevocable license, one that's written down, isn't an easement. Stated differently: is there any way to have an irrevocable license that is in writing? Question 11 on Property set 6:
[+] Spoiler
Question 11 seems like it could be either an irrevocable easement or a nonexclusive profit. I understand why the irrevocable easement answer is wrong--because it's not an interest in land--but I still don't understand the difference between an irrevocable license and an easement, apart from the fact that it's written down. Is that really the only difference? Seems weird. I'm probably overthinking this.

User avatar
acijku2
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby acijku2 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:02 pm

How close to bar grading are these Self scoring checklists for essays? It seems ridiculous to me that when a question provides a notice statute that 3 points are lost if you don't discuss what would have happened at common law without the statute. It gives the statute so that just seems unnecessary.

msjdny
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:40 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby msjdny » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:54 pm

RDA2930 wrote:
FormerChild wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:Can anyone explain the difference between an irrevocable license (license coupled with an interest) and a profit easement?

Question 11 on Property Set 6 really doesn't make sense to me. What language in an agreement will make an irrevocable license/license coupled with an interest versus a profit easement? They seem like the same thing to me. I thought the whole analysis between license and profit/easement was that licenses are revocable at will; if a license is irrevocable, doesn't that just make it a profit/easement? Edit: Does it have something to do with whether it is written or not?


Yep exactly. Easement has to be in writing, if you see something that looks like an easement, walks like an easement and barks like an easement, but it's not in writing, it's a revocable license


So I get that part--I still don't understand why an irrevocable license, one that's written down, isn't an easement. Stated differently: is there any way to have an irrevocable license that is in writing? Question 11 on Property set 6:
[+] Spoiler
Question 11 seems like it could be either an irrevocable easement or a nonexclusive profit. I understand why the irrevocable easement answer is wrong--because it's not an interest in land--but I still don't understand the difference between an irrevocable license and an easement, apart from the fact that it's written down. Is that really the only difference? Seems weird. I'm probably overthinking this.


My understanding is that normally a license is just a privilege to use the land, the person that's benefited from the license did not give anything to get any benefit so it can be revoked any time. However, for an irrevocable license, the person receiving the benefit from the license must have given something in exchange for the license, thus making it irrevocable. So an irrevocable license is created when the license is coupled with an interest. An irrevocable license can also result based on estoppel, and again, it's when the person receiving the benefit from an otherwise revocable license has contributed so much to the land either through money or labor that it would really be unfair to have it revoked at any time. Profit, on the other hand, doesn't ask the party receiving benefit of the profit from the land to "give" anything. I hope this helps.

NB12017
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:48 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby NB12017 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:59 pm

I saw in a previous post that Wills and/or Trusts are predicted. How reliable are these predictions (as far as predictions go)?

Any advice for boning up on wills & trusts? It's honestly my weakest subject. The lectures just did nothing for me. Oddly structured. Started off with a discussion of what we /wouldn't/ be covering. All in all, it felt a lot like signing up late for a class, missing the first one, and showing up late to the second one. The sticky thread on BSing helped a lot, but for whatever reason, this just isn't sticking for me.

Also, if we get an MEE question that we simply can't answer, for whatever reason, and we've given BSing a good try, is it in our best interest to just move on and try to use that time to flesh out other essays? I've seen this question asked elsewhere, but people tend to dodge the worst case scenario in favor of "you can do it. Still plenty of time!"

User avatar
cnk1220
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cnk1220 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:30 pm

NB12017 wrote:I saw in a previous post that Wills and/or Trusts are predicted. How reliable are these predictions (as far as predictions go)?

Any advice for boning up on wills & trusts? It's honestly my weakest subject. The lectures just did nothing for me. Oddly structured. Started off with a discussion of what we /wouldn't/ be covering. All in all, it felt a lot like signing up late for a class, missing the first one, and showing up late to the second one. The sticky thread on BSing helped a lot, but for whatever reason, this just isn't sticking for me.

Also, if we get an MEE question that we simply can't answer, for whatever reason, and we've given BSing a good try, is it in our best interest to just move on and try to use that time to flesh out other essays? I've seen this question asked elsewhere, but people tend to dodge the worst case scenario in favor of "you can do it. Still plenty of time!"



I would say fairly reliable. We had trusts in Feb. 2017, so I would put more emphasis on Wills- learn the major things for wills like the elements of forming a will and how to spot if one or more is missing, changing a will/testator requirement/signature in the handwriting of the testator, revocation, undue influence, holographic wills, etc.

Also check this website: https://efficientbarprep.com/support/in ... tlines.29/

They have free MEE outlines.

If you get a Q you can't answer, yes do your best by stating the rule you think applies, try to use legal buzz words to make it sound like you know what you're talking about instead of common words, but don't let it get you down. Try to answer the Q they are asking directly as well- what I wouldn't recommend- if you don't know the answer to an MEE question is to answer something else though- I have heard the bar exam graders hate this and won't give you points for going off on a rant about something unrelated to what they asked.

californiauser
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby californiauser » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:32 pm

Question about #18 in the Barbri Property Set 6:

Wouldn't the purchaser have inquiry notice about the daughter living on the land, thus rendering him a non-BFP? The answer says: "Because a will takes effect only at the testator's death, there was no prior conveyance here. Thus, the investor will not be held to have inquiry notice of the daughter's interest due to her being in possession of the land."

I thought inquiry notice could be imputed to ANY buyer of land. So this means if there are no prior recorded conveyances, inquiry notice is non-applicable?

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:41 pm

californiauser wrote:Question about #18 in the Barbri Property Set 6:

Wouldn't the purchaser have inquiry notice about the daughter living on the land, thus rendering him a non-BFP? The answer says: "Because a will takes effect only at the testator's death, there was no prior conveyance here. Thus, the investor will not be held to have inquiry notice of the daughter's interest due to her being in possession of the land."

I thought inquiry notice could be imputed to ANY buyer of land. So this means if there are no prior recorded conveyances, inquiry notice is non-applicable?


If the daughter had had an interest in the land, inquiry notice would have rendered him a non-BFP, yes. But the daughter never had an interest in the land. In order for her to have had an interest, it would have had to be conveyed--i.e. not in a will. Wills don't convey anything until the testator dies. Had the grantor executed a deed, the answer would be different and your point about inquiry notice would be spot on. But the daughter never had any interest in the first place, so there's no "interest" that the buyer could've had notice of (her merely being on the land isn't an interest).
Last edited by RDA2930 on Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NB12017
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:48 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby NB12017 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:41 pm

cnk1220 wrote:I would say fairly reliable. We had trusts in Feb. 2017, so I would put more emphasis on Wills- learn the major things for wills like the elements of forming a will and how to spot if one or more is missing, changing a will/testator requirement/signature in the handwriting of the testator, revocation, undue influence, holographic wills, etc.


Thanks, CNK. So there are subjects that just aren't tested back-to-back and others that are fair game for each administration? While there's a fair probability of wills over trusts, we can't say the same about, say, an evidence question? You mentioned a family law & a trusts question. Is it pretty common for them to test 2-3 MEE only subjects in the MEE? It makes sense. I'm just wondering.

Thanks also for the link. I've been having a rough go scoring my answers alongside Barbri's. One of simulated exam questions involved a company town and a prohibition that effectively constituted a heckler's veto by proscribing unpopular ideas (or a foreseeable reaction to receiving information about an unfavorable idea). That struck me as a pretty straightforward SS analysis. But they ran it as content neutral and relying only intermediate scrutiny. Same result. Different analysis.

User avatar
cnk1220
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cnk1220 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:52 pm

NB12017 wrote:
cnk1220 wrote:I would say fairly reliable. We had trusts in Feb. 2017, so I would put more emphasis on Wills- learn the major things for wills like the elements of forming a will and how to spot if one or more is missing, changing a will/testator requirement/signature in the handwriting of the testator, revocation, undue influence, holographic wills, etc.


Thanks, CNK. So there are subjects that just aren't tested back-to-back and others that are fair game for each administration? While there's a fair probability of wills over trusts, we can't say the same about, say, an evidence question? You mentioned a family law & a trusts question. Is it pretty common for them to test 2-3 MEE only subjects in the MEE? It makes sense. I'm just wondering.

Thanks also for the link. I've been having a rough go scoring my answers alongside Barbri's. One of simulated exam questions involved a company town and a prohibition that effectively constituted a heckler's veto by proscribing unpopular ideas (or a foreseeable reaction to receiving information about an unfavorable idea). That struck me as a pretty straightforward SS analysis. But they ran it as content neutral and relying only intermediate scrutiny. Same result. Different analysis.



I wouldn't goes as far as to say: "there are subjects that just aren't tested back-to-back and others that are fair game for each administration" just because the NCBE is totally unpredictable- see July 2016's MEE exam- apparently there were a few topics out of left-field for them like repeating secured transactions and combining evidence with crim pro in 1 question which they hadn't done before. Also they left out wills and trusts and fam law on July 2016, however before that they had usually tested one of these 3 on almost every exam. However, because we just had trusts and fam+conflicts in Feb. 2017, I would be inclined to say Wills is more likely this time around, but as I mentioned, the NCBE is totally unpredictable, and with all the websites that post predictions online becoming greater, they may have caught onto this and decided to throw some curveballs so that test-takers have to study everything or are screwed- I know a lot of people who took July 2016 and didn't study secured trans. at all and were completely f*cked when it appeared as its not something you can just BS.

I would say there are topics that the NCBE likes to test more often than not, like family law and conflicts don't get repeated back to back to back as often as contracts or property would, but that's not to say the NCBE can't do as they please- as everything is fair game. I would say it's unlikely to re-test a certain issue in a subject back to back. For example- in Feb. 2017 we had property (landlord/tenant), and for contracts we had merchant/firm offer issue for our essays, if NCBE decides to repeat property and contracts it's more likely they would test on a different issue like mortgages/equitable servitude and third party beneficiaries (for example) rather than re-testing those specific issues they just tested.

As far as the number of MEE topics, in Feb. 2017 we had more MEE subjects (fam+conflicts/agency/corporations/trusts) vs. only 2 MBE topics (contracts/property) but in July 2016 it was the opposite, they had more MBE topics than MEE.

Hope this helps!

NB12017
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:48 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby NB12017 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:07 pm

cnk1220 wrote:Hope this helps!


Helps alot, CNK. Thanks!

californiauser
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby californiauser » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:19 pm

RDA2930 wrote:
californiauser wrote:Question about #18 in the Barbri Property Set 6:

Wouldn't the purchaser have inquiry notice about the daughter living on the land, thus rendering him a non-BFP? The answer says: "Because a will takes effect only at the testator's death, there was no prior conveyance here. Thus, the investor will not be held to have inquiry notice of the daughter's interest due to her being in possession of the land."

I thought inquiry notice could be imputed to ANY buyer of land. So this means if there are no prior recorded conveyances, inquiry notice is non-applicable?


If the daughter had had an interest in the land, inquiry notice would have rendered him a non-BFP, yes. But the daughter never had an interest in the land. In order for her to have had an interest, it would have had to be conveyed--i.e. not in a will. Wills don't convey anything until the testator dies. Had the grantor executed a deed, the answer would be different and your point about inquiry notice would be spot on. But the daughter never had any interest in the first place, so there's no "interest" that the buyer could've had notice of (her merely being on the land isn't an interest).


Thanks!

User avatar
cnk1220
Posts: 988
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cnk1220 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:20 pm

NB12017 wrote:
cnk1220 wrote:Hope this helps!


Helps alot, CNK. Thanks!



Welcome! Good luck, it'll be over soon!!

nylaw92
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby nylaw92 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:46 pm

Can someone explain Real Property Set 6 Question 8 to me?

sf45
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:11 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby sf45 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:20 pm

nylaw92 wrote:Can someone explain Real Property Set 6 Question 8 to me?


The recording statute protects BPVs against unrecorded interests if they don't have notice. But the victim isn't a BPV, they're a judgment lienholder. Additionally, they tried to attach their lien to the property of tortfeasor after it had already been transferred by tortfeasor to buyer. Essentially, they tried to attach their interest to a property that tortfeasor didn't own, and since they aren't a BPV the fact that buyer didn't record their deed doesn't save them. So the answer is B. Hope this helps.

__

MEE strategy. Sometimes I've been unsure about a rule of law. I think one way is correct, but going the other way would allow me to sweep up more facts from the prompt. In these situations, should I be saying "if the court rules X, this happens; if they rule Y, this happens?" Or should I pick a rule of law and stick with it?

nylaw92
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 12:20 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby nylaw92 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:16 pm

sf45 wrote:
nylaw92 wrote:Can someone explain Real Property Set 6 Question 8 to me?


The recording statute protects BPVs against unrecorded interests if they don't have notice. But the victim isn't a BPV, they're a judgment lienholder. Additionally, they tried to attach their lien to the property of tortfeasor after it had already been transferred by tortfeasor to buyer. Essentially, they tried to attach their interest to a property that tortfeasor didn't own, and since they aren't a BPV the fact that buyer didn't record their deed doesn't save them. So the answer is B. Hope this helps.

__

MEE strategy. Sometimes I've been unsure about a rule of law. I think one way is correct, but going the other way would allow me to sweep up more facts from the prompt. In these situations, should I be saying "if the court rules X, this happens; if they rule Y, this happens?" Or should I pick a rule of law and stick with it?


That makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I realize now my confusion comes from a question I did that had essentially the same fact pattern, but was instead testing the rule that a judgement "promptly and properly filed" is in fact recorded.

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:21 pm

Crim Pro question on jury instructions:

So, jury instructions can never have the effect of burdening a defendant to prove that he didn't commit the crime. The only exception is that a jury can be instructed so as to impose a burden of proof on defendant if it's an affirmative defense. I understand that as a general idea, but am having trouble applying it, especially in MBE questions.

Is it only kosher to instruct a jury on a defendant's burden to prove a defense where the defense doesn't go directly to an element of the crime? Stated differently, what exactly is an affirmative defense in practice? Is it just insanity and self-defense?

SowhatsNU
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby SowhatsNU » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:10 pm

Did anyone do Corps Question 3 on the MEE's?

It gives appraisal rights for D&E, but A owns 70% of stock, B owns 15%, and C owns 15%, so while I'm not great at math, I thought that's 100%....

In which case, how can you have appraisal rights without any stock...there were like seven points on that part of the answer..

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:13 pm

SowhatsNU wrote:Did anyone do Corps Question 3 on the MEE's?

It gives appraisal rights for D&E, but A owns 70% of stock, B owns 15%, and C owns 15%, so while I'm not great at math, I thought that's 100%....

In which case, how can you have appraisal rights without any stock...there were like seven points on that part of the answer..


D and E held 15% each. B and C, A's kids, were just officers of the corporation and served on the board of directors; B and C didn't own any stock.

User avatar
EzraFitz
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:42 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby EzraFitz » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:14 pm

RDA2930 wrote:Crim Pro question on jury instructions:

So, jury instructions can never have the effect of burdening a defendant to prove that he didn't commit the crime. The only exception is that a jury can be instructed so as to impose a burden of proof on defendant if it's an affirmative defense. I understand that as a general idea, but am having trouble applying it, especially in MBE questions.

Is it only kosher to instruct a jury on a defendant's burden to prove a defense where the defense doesn't go directly to an element of the crime? Stated differently, what exactly is an affirmative defense in practice? Is it just insanity and self-defense?

Affirmative defenses mitigate otherwise unlawful conduct. If a defense goes to an element of the crime, that essentially is defending that the crime was not complete in all elements. So if it goes to any element of the crime, not an affirmative defenses, it just gives rebutting evidence against Prosecutorial evidence trying to prove the element.

So yes. If it goes to an element, jury instruction cannot put a burden on the D.

SowhatsNU
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby SowhatsNU » Thu Jul 20, 2017 3:22 pm

RDA2930 wrote:
SowhatsNU wrote:Did anyone do Corps Question 3 on the MEE's?

It gives appraisal rights for D&E, but A owns 70% of stock, B owns 15%, and C owns 15%, so while I'm not great at math, I thought that's 100%....

In which case, how can you have appraisal rights without any stock...there were like seven points on that part of the answer..


D and E held 15% each. B and C, A's kids, were just officers of the corporation and served on the board of directors; B and C didn't own any stock.


Haha whoops..

User avatar
esrom55
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby esrom55 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:42 pm

In case anyone else needs a little procrastination...thought this was amusing

https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/comments/6oh4df/too_late_to_sign_up_for_july_bar_exam/

User avatar
fratstar1
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:35 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby fratstar1 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:59 pm

Did pretty well on the MBE sim/100 q/50 q (averaging 60-70%) but then got to mpq 5 and 6 of contracts and got like 30% normal ?????? Then did evidence 5 and got 2 below normal (my best subject usually averaging 80%). Kind of afraid I just somehow forgot everything.

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:08 pm

fratstar1 wrote:Did pretty well on the MBE sim/100 q/50 q (averaging 60-70%) but then got to mpq 5 and 6 of contracts and got like 30% normal ?????? Then did evidence 5 and got 2 below normal (my best subject usually averaging 80%). Kind of afraid I just somehow forgot everything.


I had the same experience with both contracts and evidence. Particularly with evidence, was doing quite well, and my % plummeted for set 5. I am chalking it up to those sets being the hardest of the Barbri sets and trying not to let it psych me out.

User avatar
EzraFitz
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:42 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby EzraFitz » Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:30 pm

RDA2930 wrote:
fratstar1 wrote:Did pretty well on the MBE sim/100 q/50 q (averaging 60-70%) but then got to mpq 5 and 6 of contracts and got like 30% normal ?????? Then did evidence 5 and got 2 below normal (my best subject usually averaging 80%). Kind of afraid I just somehow forgot everything.


I had the same experience with both contracts and evidence. Particularly with evidence, was doing quite well, and my % plummeted for set 5. I am chalking it up to those sets being the hardest of the Barbri sets and trying not to let it psych me out.

Set 6, while still quite hard, bounces back with some normal topics, just difficult fact patterns. Don't let 5 get you down.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests