2019 February California Bar

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

New
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:05 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby lawstoodent » Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:24 pm

Atmosphere wrote:Maybe I’m just terrible at essays.


?

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:28 pm

km0ney wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:Ok tell me what I missed. Sure it’s a lot.

First: community property, quasi community property, doesn’t matter that his money and his name only. Condo is cp. only has 50 percent interest. Cant create joint tenancy. Wife takes it all.

First will is value due to COL, likely. Stan is sort of omitted child (talk about condo and trust). Codicil is invalid due to capacity maybe? Bill doesn’t take.

Trust seems valid even though revocable. Creditors Can’t get by CP still liable, etc.

Second: strict liability for wild animals or propensity, premises liability, negligence as to both ps, not nied argument I guess, not battery or assault, assumption of risk and contributory risk analysis?

Third: Quiet enjoyment/habitability/constructive eviction and damages re: rent and finding new tenant?

Four: basically just hearsay, relevance, remedial, expert/opinion, and a really straight forward diversity?

Five: idk? All the normal stuff?



Sounds very straight forward w/ no surprises.


I mean, kinda true, but to start off with a 4 subject crossover was pretty nuts. Wills, trusts - okay...throw in CP, fine. Oh real property? FU

some1uknown

New
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:20 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby some1uknown » Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:34 pm

JakeTappers wrote:Ok tell me what I missed. Sure it’s a lot.

First: community property, quasi community property, doesn’t matter that his money and his name only. Condo is cp. only has 50 percent interest. Cant create joint tenancy. Wife takes it all.

First will is value due to COL, likely. Stan is sort of omitted child (talk about condo and trust). Codicil is invalid due to capacity maybe? Bill doesn’t take.

Trust seems valid even though revocable. Creditors Can’t get by CP still liable, etc.

Second: strict liability for wild animals or propensity, premises liability, negligence as to both ps, not nied argument I guess, not battery or assault, assumption of risk and contributory risk analysis?

Third: Quiet enjoyment/habitability/constructive eviction and damages re: rent and finding new tenant?

Four: basically just hearsay, relevance, remedial, expert/opinion, and a really straight forward diversity?

Five: idk? All the normal stuff?

Maybe I'm stupid but for 4 I ended up doing ca evidence arguing that it was a federal judge in diversity applying state substantive law and therefore it would end up being ca evidence law

lawstoodent

New
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:05 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby lawstoodent » Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:42 pm

some1uknown wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:Ok tell me what I missed. Sure it’s a lot.

First: community property, quasi community property, doesn’t matter that his money and his name only. Condo is cp. only has 50 percent interest. Cant create joint tenancy. Wife takes it all.

First will is value due to COL, likely. Stan is sort of omitted child (talk about condo and trust). Codicil is invalid due to capacity maybe? Bill doesn’t take.

Trust seems valid even though revocable. Creditors Can’t get by CP still liable, etc.

Second: strict liability for wild animals or propensity, premises liability, negligence as to both ps, not nied argument I guess, not battery or assault, assumption of risk and contributory risk analysis?

Third: Quiet enjoyment/habitability/constructive eviction and damages re: rent and finding new tenant?

Four: basically just hearsay, relevance, remedial, expert/opinion, and a really straight forward diversity?

Five: idk? All the normal stuff?

Maybe I'm stupid but for 4 I ended up doing ca evidence arguing that it was a federal judge in diversity applying state substantive law and therefore it would end up being ca evidence law


yeah but it would apply federal procedure law. isn't the FRE federal procedural law?

ovcovc

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby ovcovc » Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:47 pm

JakeTappers wrote:Ok tell me what I missed. Sure it’s a lot.

First: community property, quasi community property, doesn’t matter that his money and his name only. Condo is cp. only has 50 percent interest. Cant create joint tenancy. Wife takes it all.

First will is value due to COL, likely. Stan is sort of omitted child (talk about condo and trust). Codicil is invalid due to capacity maybe? Bill doesn’t take.

Trust seems valid even though revocable. Creditors Can’t get by CP still liable, etc.

Second: strict liability for wild animals or propensity, premises liability, negligence as to both ps, not nied argument I guess, not battery or assault, assumption of risk and contributory risk analysis?

Third: Quiet enjoyment/habitability/constructive eviction and damages re: rent and finding new tenant?

Four: basically just hearsay, relevance, remedial, expert/opinion, and a really straight forward diversity?

Five: idk? All the normal stuff?


mate i think codicil is invalid, conservator cannot invent new benefiriaris that the dude himself never had in mind, yeah thats what i think

haha i forgot to mention the cost of finding new tenant, i even said no other damages than rent, and LL duty to mitigate) i am so pro tenant) but i disagree with constructive eviction here, he was not responsibke for nuiscance and had no notice if habitability deficiencies. so i guess i am pro LL)

i did not argue battery or assault for the monkey. sure he is strictly liable for biting, but monkey comitting assault? dunno.

you dont seen to have mentioned negligent rescue, i think the issue there was heglighent rescue

i am confused by the jurisdiction bit. firstly yo the poster here that says CA evidence law, maybe nevada and who knows what it is LOL. q said apply federal law. BUT i am confused about motion to dismiss. after the trial? what am i missing here? I agree amount in controversy as claimed wa dodgy but surely he missed an opportunity to bring motion to dismiss? grrr i cant commmit any civ pro to memory rrrrr

some1uknown

New
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:20 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby some1uknown » Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:56 pm

lawstoodent wrote:
some1uknown wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:Ok tell me what I missed. Sure it’s a lot.

First: community property, quasi community property, doesn’t matter that his money and his name only. Condo is cp. only has 50 percent interest. Cant create joint tenancy. Wife takes it all.

First will is value due to COL, likely. Stan is sort of omitted child (talk about condo and trust). Codicil is invalid due to capacity maybe? Bill doesn’t take.

Trust seems valid even though revocable. Creditors Can’t get by CP still liable, etc.

Second: strict liability for wild animals or propensity, premises liability, negligence as to both ps, not nied argument I guess, not battery or assault, assumption of risk and contributory risk analysis?

Third: Quiet enjoyment/habitability/constructive eviction and damages re: rent and finding new tenant?

Four: basically just hearsay, relevance, remedial, expert/opinion, and a really straight forward diversity?

Five: idk? All the normal stuff?

Maybe I'm stupid but for 4 I ended up doing ca evidence arguing that it was a federal judge in diversity applying state substantive law and therefore it would end up being ca evidence law


yeah but it would apply federal procedure law. isn't the FRE federal procedural law?


Honestly couldn't remender when I was writing it it just stuck with me and well c'est la vie

User avatar
thizzinmybrainsout

New
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:50 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby thizzinmybrainsout » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:05 pm

pretty sure call of question said analyze under Federal... and there was no reference to what state USDC it was in (IIRC)

and moreover you're in fed court, FRE applies.

Flury

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:03 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Flury » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:07 pm

Going a little crazy and trying to convince myself I didn't commit a major fuck up. For the PT what side were we supposed to argue? 5 minutes after walking out I became convinced I misread the instructions.

User avatar
MBernard

Moderator
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 5:06 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby MBernard » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:10 pm

Congrats on getting through the first day guys! Make sure you get a good nights rest. Good luck with the MBE tomorrow, God Bless.

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:19 pm

Anyone feel confident enough in 1 or 2 to walk through the claim? Felt like I really ran out of time. 3 felt simple enough but the morning was a damn race.

User avatar
thizzinmybrainsout

New
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:50 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby thizzinmybrainsout » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:24 pm

1 i think most of the pertinent stuff was alluded to a few posts up... sneaky little community prop x-over right off the bat

User avatar
thizzinmybrainsout

New
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:50 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby thizzinmybrainsout » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:26 pm

IIRC the trust funds were from an inheritance so that got a mention/some analysis

mycrookedwand

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:15 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby mycrookedwand » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:26 pm

Definitely FRE for Erie Doctrine b/c FRE is on-point procedural (just as P's 7th Am. jury trial was). Also yes, that would be a really screwed up day if they starting screwing with us by telling us we had to use fed law but were just tricking us. That would be the day....

In other news, did I miss something re: AIC and eventual jury verdict? Were they trying to get at it not being plead in good faith? And in light of the the witness testimony? Tripped me out but I decided not to go there b/c I was already running out of time.

Btw, are we allowed to have these conversations if we don't actually talk about the fact pattern?

User avatar
thizzinmybrainsout

New
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:50 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby thizzinmybrainsout » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:28 pm

also, i felt like morning Qs were kinda mind-fucky, but not that hard really... and 4&5 were like, straight up easy. Not trynna humble brag, but it was kinda unnerving

ovcovc

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby ovcovc » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:43 pm

JakeTappers wrote:Ok tell me what I missed. Sure it’s a lot.

First: community property, quasi community property, doesn’t matter that his money and his name only. Condo is cp. only has 50 percent interest. Cant create joint tenancy. Wife takes it all.

First will is value due to COL, likely. Stan is sort of omitted child (talk about condo and trust). Codicil is invalid due to capacity maybe? Bill doesn’t take.

Trust seems valid even though revocable. Creditors Can’t get by CP still liable, etc.

Second: strict liability for wild animals or propensity, premises liability, negligence as to both ps, not nied argument I guess, not battery or assault, assumption of risk and contributory risk analysis?

Third: Quiet enjoyment/habitability/constructive eviction and damages re: rent and finding new tenant?

Four: basically just hearsay, relevance, remedial, expert/opinion, and a really straight forward diversity?

Five: idk? All the normal stuff?


also sorry but how is sid an omitted child, he exiested and hank clearly knew about it ))or was it a joke)) sory i lost my sense of humor

i think the kid got nothing except future interest under the trust, and serves him well by neglecting his fudicial duty as a conservatior and inventing new benficiaries

AspiringLawyer8818

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:27 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby AspiringLawyer8818 » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:45 pm

Hi All,

I hope everyone is feeling moderately confident coming out of today. This is my first post but was looking to ask a few questions to help ease my mind.

First, as far as today’s essays go, I felt pretty damn confident with 2-5. Maybe, one or two minor issues missed (defenses to negligence on torts due to lack of time), but overall pretty complete and well-organized. However, I feel like I tanked on #1 and the PT. #1 was mainly a timing issue, while I identified the main points my organization was crap and I had to rush through pretty much all of it. As a result, reasoning was very bare bones. Then there is the performance G.... I feel like I bombed it. Didn’t have nearly enough time and didn’t remember how to organize a brief. I was a bit frustrated bc to my understanding PTs are supposed to be a closed universe, but I haven’t had any practice drafting briefs since 2L year. As a result, I think my organization was way off and missed some major points.

Do I still have a chance to pass this monster?

And on a separate note, I have to comment on testing accommodations. I’m sure this is pure bitterness talking, but the gentlemen next to me appeared to have a single question or sheet of paper on both portions of the exam. He very casually worked through his answer and appeared to finish with 30+ min morning and afternoon. What’s up with that?!? I’m not against accommodations, but shouldn’t the exam still be difficult for someone provided with accommodations given the disability they are labeled with? Overall, it was just incredibly frustrating to see someone cruise through what appeared to be some sort of condensed exam when the rest of us were writing our brains out. Thoughts? Ps this dude was not using a laptop and very clearly was not writing out the exam (as I was in a laptop row)

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:48 pm

thizzinmybrainsout wrote:also, i felt like morning Qs were kinda mind-fucky, but not that hard really... and 4&5 were like, straight up easy. Not trynna humble brag, but it was kinda unnerving


Felt the same. When I got to the end of 4 I was like seriously? And then the PR seemed easy but when I wung the attorneys exam last year I thought the PR was equally as easy—figured I could pull a 70 and got like 60. So what do I know.

lawstoodent

New
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:05 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby lawstoodent » Tue Feb 26, 2019 11:49 pm

JakeTappers wrote:
thizzinmybrainsout wrote:also, i felt like morning Qs were kinda mind-fucky, but not that hard really... and 4&5 were like, straight up easy. Not trynna humble brag, but it was kinda unnerving


Felt the same. When I got to the end of 4 I was like seriously? And then the PR seemed easy but when I wung the attorneys exam last year I thought the PR was equally as easy—figured I could pull a 70 and got like 60. So what do I know.


It's possible that the easier the question, the harder the curve/grading. So, unless it's perfect, just like law school, you may be median owned or less. Which sucks.

biglawl88

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:22 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby biglawl88 » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:03 am

JakeTappers wrote:Anyone feel confident enough in 1 or 2 to walk through the claim? Felt like I really ran out of time. 3 felt simple enough but the morning was a damn race.


For 1, I think a big issue was the wife being required to do a widow’s election. Could be wrong though.

kikiland

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:02 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby kikiland » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:03 am

Can someone explain how there was an omitted child?

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:04 am

lawstoodent wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:
thizzinmybrainsout wrote:also, i felt like morning Qs were kinda mind-fucky, but not that hard really... and 4&5 were like, straight up easy. Not trynna humble brag, but it was kinda unnerving


Felt the same. When I got to the end of 4 I was like seriously? And then the PR seemed easy but when I wung the attorneys exam last year I thought the PR was equally as easy—figured I could pull a 70 and got like 60. So what do I know.


It's possible that the easier the question, the harder the curve/grading. So, unless it's perfect, just like law school, you may be median owned or less. Which sucks.


Is this how it works though? I thought it was just a rubric. And then scaled to the MBE. I guess, in practice, if you are seeing a ton of essays you start grading a certain way though.

JakeTappers

Bronze
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 11:38 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby JakeTappers » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:05 am

biglawl88 wrote:
JakeTappers wrote:Anyone feel confident enough in 1 or 2 to walk through the claim? Felt like I really ran out of time. 3 felt simple enough but the morning was a damn race.


For 1, I think a big issue was the wife being required to do a widow’s election. Could be wrong though.
y

Yea I realized that and didn’t have time to throw it in. I also couldn’t really tell off the top of my head if there was going to be a big difference between what she takes under the will and not.

Heyall

New
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:28 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby Heyall » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:05 am

Super tough today. Had time problems with both sessions and my analysis was skimpy bc of all the issues crammed in there.

Hopefully the curve will be alright.

The community property and evidence were insane.

kikiland

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:02 am

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby kikiland » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:28 am

Can someone explain where there was an omitted child?

User avatar
NikaneOkie

Bronze
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 12:39 pm

Re: 2019 February California Bar

Postby NikaneOkie » Wed Feb 27, 2019 12:41 am

So this is my 3rd bar exam (passed last two pretty easily) but I got anhilated today by the MPT. Since I took the attorney exam I am super concerned I didn't pass because of that. If I organized well and hit all the law statements well and ran out of time in fact application (only a few cursory fact sentences at the end of 3-4 sections) how screwed am I? Did ok on all the other essays pretty sure.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kingwhereofis and 15 guests