OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[smaug_]

If it's something like "O conveys Blackacre to O's grandchildren upon graduation from HS", then the measuring life would be O's children right? That part is perfectly OK, because upon O's death, all of O's children will have been born. But, it's still possible that upon the death of O's last child (measuring life) + 21 additional years, the grandchild will have never graduated from HS, right?

Yeah that's right and falls under the fertile octogenarian problem, right? (There could be more grandkids born.) But if there are named grandchildren instead, it wouldn't be a problem. I think I just misunderstood whether or not the grandkids were alive and born. We're saying the same thing. (I think.)

[stillwater]

If it's something like "O conveys Blackacre to O's grandchildren upon graduation from HS", then the measuring life would be O's children right? That part is perfectly OK, because upon O's death, all of O's children will have been born. But, it's still possible that upon the death of O's last child (measuring life) + 21 additional years, the grandchild will have never graduated from HS, right?

Yeah that's right and falls under the fertile octogenarian problem, right? (There could be more grandkids born.) But if there are named grandchildren instead, it wouldn't be a problem. I think I just misunderstood whether or not the grandkids were alive and born. We're saying the same thing. (I think.)

I thought the point of RAP was that it MUST vest within a measuring life + 21 years. If we cannot say it necessarily MUST vest at the moment of the grant, then its invalidated.

[Bronck]

If it's something like "O conveys Blackacre to O's grandchildren upon graduation from HS", then the measuring life would be O's children right? That part is perfectly OK, because upon O's death, all of O's children will have been born. But, it's still possible that upon the death of O's last child (measuring life) + 21 additional years, the grandchild will have never graduated from HS, right?

Yeah that's right and falls under the fertile octogenarian problem, right? (There could be more grandkids born.) But if there are named grandchildren instead, it wouldn't be a problem. I think I just misunderstood whether or not the grandkids were alive and born. We're saying the same thing. (I think.)

I thought the point of RAP was that it MUST vest within a measuring life + 21 years. If we cannot say it necessarily MUST vest at the moment of the grant, then its invalidated.

That was my impression as well.

The exception being if you are dealing with a state that adopted a "wait-and-see" statute.

[smaug_]

If it's something like "O conveys Blackacre to O's grandchildren upon graduation from HS", then the measuring life would be O's children right? That part is perfectly OK, because upon O's death, all of O's children will have been born. But, it's still possible that upon the death of O's last child (measuring life) + 21 additional years, the grandchild will have never graduated from HS, right?

Yeah that's right and falls under the fertile octogenarian problem, right? (There could be more grandkids born.) But if there are named grandchildren instead, it wouldn't be a problem. I think I just misunderstood whether or not the grandkids were alive and born. We're saying the same thing. (I think.)

I thought the point of RAP was that it MUST vest within a measuring life + 21 years. If we cannot say it necessarily MUST vest at the moment of the grant, then its invalidated.

Yeah I'm wrong.

[Redamon1]

Oh, I wanted to ask you all. One of my exams has a policy questions. What is a good way to prepare for this?

Try your hand at a couple of sample policy questions and write out detailed and complete answers for them. In a given class, the policy points you'll come up with will usually apply beyond a single question, so if you can fully write out a few problems, you should be in good shape. Keep a checklist of those main points you've come up with.

The other thing I recommend is guessing which policy question your professor will throw at you. I had 2 policy questions in my first semester, and once they're in front of you, it seems really obvious that the professor was going to pick it. I actually guessed one of them accurately. Think about the big picture, and more importantly, think about what kinds of points come up over and over again in class discussion that your prof tends to emphasize or find really interesting / unsettled.

[gaud]

Bros, I'm about to CSWS all over this weekend

[stillwater]

Bros, I'm about to CSWS all over this weekend

yeaaa, I am about to pop off on Con Law tmw.

[Redamon1]

Bros, I'm about to CSWS all over this weekend Spring Break

[smaug_]

Now if I can just figure out everything I have wrong about takings…

[LetsGoLAW]

Late night grind, boys. Hammering through this Con Law outline. Want to have my outlines done a month before my first final. 4 weeks for E&E problems and PTs. Let's go.

[smaug_]

I thought the point of RAP was that it MUST vest within a measuring life + 21 years. If we cannot say it necessarily MUST vest at the moment of the grant, then its invalidated.

I've changed my mind. What you're saying is correct, but, I thought that the rule was IF it vests it MUST vest within a measuring life +21 years. If there is no possibility for it to vest outside that window it is still valid even if it doesn't vest. Right? Or am I just really really bad at property?

A wait-and-see approach differs in that it says IF it vests within the period it doesn't matter that it could have vested outside of that time period.

[stillwater]

I thought the point of RAP was that it MUST vest within a measuring life + 21 years. If we cannot say it necessarily MUST vest at the moment of the grant, then its invalidated.

I've changed my mind. What you're saying is correct, but, I thought that the rule was IF it vests it MUST vest within a measuring life +21 years. If there is no possibility for it to vest outside that window it is still valid even if it doesn't vest. Right? Or am I just really really bad at property?

A wait-and-see approach differs in that it says IF it vests within the period it doesn't matter that it could have vested outside of that time period.

well as soon as you know a future interest will definitively fail to vest, then its wiped from the face of the Earth.

[smaug_]

well as soon as you know a future interest will definitively fail to vest, then its wiped from the face of the Earth.

Like to use the Symphony Space stuff as an example, if the option had been limited to a 21 year window, it wouldn't have been invalid, I thought. It could have been left open up until the point that it would violate the RAP, it just can't leave that window open any longer. You don't know if they're going to exercise the option until they do so, and they're under no obligation to exercise their option. That, in my mind at least, is an example of an interest that possibly never vests but could have only vested in the valid window and thus would have avoided the RAP.

[stillwater]

well as soon as you know a future interest will definitively fail to vest, then its wiped from the face of the Earth.

Like to use the Symphony Space stuff as an example, if the option had been limited to a 21 year window, it wouldn't have been invalid, I thought. It could have been left open up until the point that it would violate the RAP, it just can't leave that window open any longer. You don't know if they're going to exercise the option until they do so, and they're under no obligation to exercise their option. That, in my mind at least, is an example of an interest that possibly never vests but could have only vested in the valid window and thus would have avoided the RAP.

Okay, i see what you're saying. It seems like what you are saying is fine then. Just looking at the purpose of RAP, it seeks to limit dead hand control, so presumably if you write the grant in a way to fall short of triggering RAP then it should be good.

BUT, at any given point it is clear it will definitively fail to vest, then it vanishes. I THINK (my understanding is tenuous at best)

[Bronck]

well as soon as you know a future interest will definitively fail to vest, then its wiped from the face of the Earth.

Like to use the Symphony Space stuff as an example, if the option had been limited to a 21 year window, it wouldn't have been invalid, I thought. It could have been left open up until the point that it would violate the RAP, it just can't leave that window open any longer. You don't know if they're going to exercise the option until they do so, and they're under no obligation to exercise their option. That, in my mind at least, is an example of an interest that possibly never vests but could have only vested in the valid window and thus would have avoided the RAP.

Hmm, I see what you're saying now... I'm going to have to practice this shit more and get back to you LOL

[stillwater]

well as soon as you know a future interest will definitively fail to vest, then its wiped from the face of the Earth.

Like to use the Symphony Space stuff as an example, if the option had been limited to a 21 year window, it wouldn't have been invalid, I thought. It could have been left open up until the point that it would violate the RAP, it just can't leave that window open any longer. You don't know if they're going to exercise the option until they do so, and they're under no obligation to exercise their option. That, in my mind at least, is an example of an interest that possibly never vests but could have only vested in the valid window and thus would have avoided the RAP.

Hmm, I see what you're saying now... I'm going to have to practice this shit more and get back to you LOL

The rule itself is easy, it's the mechanics and application that's tough. Kinda reminds me of some of the more complex supp juris/joinder problems in CivPro.

[Tiago Splitter]

Yeah I'll go ahead and just take that B in property and move on.

[smaug_]

well as soon as you know a future interest will definitively fail to vest, then its wiped from the face of the Earth.

Like to use the Symphony Space stuff as an example, if the option had been limited to a 21 year window, it wouldn't have been invalid, I thought. It could have been left open up until the point that it would violate the RAP, it just can't leave that window open any longer. You don't know if they're going to exercise the option until they do so, and they're under no obligation to exercise their option. That, in my mind at least, is an example of an interest that possibly never vests but could have only vested in the valid window and thus would have avoided the RAP.

Hmm, I see what you're saying now... I'm going to have to practice this shit more and get back to you LOL

Yeah feel free to correct me. Being forced to be super explicit about this is really helpful. I think your initial example is still a good one: whether or not it violates the RAP would depend on how carefully drafted the document is. Are the grandkids mentioned by name? Are the kids mentioned by name (the widow/widower could still have more kids)? Did you set a clear cut off point? (Like in Symphony Space, you could have had the window desired (which I think was like 26 years?) if you actually named a life in being.)

And seriously, I hate takings. I didn't want Con Law in my Property stuff.

[gaud]

Yeah I'll go ahead and just take that B in property and move on.

I wish I could do this for advocacy. Not because it's difficult, but because it's hard to care about a 2 credit course.

[stillwater]

Yeah I'll go ahead and just take that B in property and move on.

I wish I could do this for advocacy. Not because it's difficult, but because it's hard to care about a 2 credit course.

That's how I feel about my brief/Legal writing

[nucky thompson]

Looks like a

If it's something like "O conveys Blackacre to O's grandchildren upon graduation from HS", then the measuring life would be O's children right? That part is perfectly OK, because upon O's death, all of O's children will have been born. But, it's still possible that upon the death of O's last child (measuring life) + 21 additional years, the grandchild will have never graduated from HS, right?

Yeah that's right and falls under the fertile octogenarian problem, right? (There could be more grandkids born.) But if there are named grandchildren instead, it wouldn't be a problem. I think I just misunderstood whether or not the grandkids were alive and born. We're saying the same thing. (I think.)

first: what is the future interest? - Here, looks like a springing executory interest in O's grandchildren - O's grandchildren are not ascertained.

second: conditions precedent? - O must have a child, that child must have a child (o's grandchild) - that grandchild must then graduate high school. If O has more than one grandchild, then we must consider a few jurisdictional specific rules. "all or nothing rule" says that if the future interest is in a class, it will not be considered "vested" unless all eligible class members meet the condition precedent (if one future interest may not vest, the Rap considers none of them will vest) - "Rule of convenience" says once the classes (grandchildren) common ancestor (here, O's children who have the baby grandchildren) passes away, then the class is considered closed for purposes of RAP.

third: find a measuring life - If O has grandchildren then they can be the validating lives, or O, or O's child

fourth: will we know with certainty within 21 years of a validating life whether or not the interest will vest? - I can think of a scenario in which we would not know. Say O has a child, O's child has a child (grandchild) --> then O dies, O's child dies -- so all the validating lives are gone -- will we know, with certainty, whether or not grandchild will graduate high school within 21 years? --> NOOOO! not everyone graduates high school. But they could go back and try later on in adulthood.

Thus, Rap is violated

[LetsGoLAW]

To anyone freaking out over FI - http://www.amazon.com/Possessory-Estate ... 0314183698

Went through the book twice. Booked property. Missed 1 FI problem, out of 30.

[stillwater]

To anyone freaking out over FI - http://www.amazon.com/Possessory-Estate ... 0314183698

Went through the book twice. Booked property. Missed 1 FI problem, out of 30.

you book the shit outta that shit? i feel like RAP and FIs are going to be a smaller component of my exam. we only spent 3 weeks or so on it.

[Lacepiece23]

To anyone freaking out over FI - http://www.amazon.com/Possessory-Estate ... 0314183698

Went through the book twice. Booked property. Missed 1 FI problem, out of 30.

you book the shit outta that shit? i feel like RAP and FIs are going to be a smaller component of my exam. we only spent 3 weeks or so on it.

We only spent 4 days on it lol. Our teacher for some reason doesn't care at all about it. Don't know whether this is a good thing or not though.

[LetsGoLAW]

To anyone freaking out over FI - http://www.amazon.com/Possessory-Estate ... 0314183698

Went through the book twice. Booked property. Missed 1 FI problem, out of 30.

you book the shit outta that shit? i feel like RAP and FIs are going to be a smaller component of my exam. we only spent 3 weeks or so on it.

We only spent 4 days on it lol. Our teacher for some reason doesn't care at all about it. Don't know whether this is a good thing or not though.

Depends on your professor, obviously. We spent 3 weeks on it. Half of our exam. However, that book gives you an amazing method to handle RAP. I had no idea what RAP was, I just applied the test. Gives you simple ways to understand fertile octogenarian, Rule in Shelley's Case, Doctrine of Worthier Title, etc.