California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum

[Old Gregg]

Can someone quickly, just in case, explain to me the rules for what happens in a land k where the k has more land than the actual property, and vice versa? Much appreciated

Specific performance with a pro rata reduction in purchase price.

[TaipeiMort]

Encroachment on an easement previously granted?

is that the one that had an answer of it being usable? i think i put that though i don't know what law suggests that. there was another about a guy that expressly granted an easement, then bought back the property (so it merged and went away) then resold that part of the lot and then died and the son i think built a fence and another property owner offered an easement at a price, and there was a takings question about a setback too

The answer to that fucking takings question better be that it required the farmers to allow the hikers on their land. Scalia said straight up that a forced easement was a per se taking in some case I read in law school.

I said per se taking because public was going on his land.
But I also got completely fucked up on this, because I think it was July 2010 essays about when 10 acres of a 100 acre lot were taken in their entirety? or partially? or how do you analyze that taking? Anyway, the model answers had completely fucking different interpretations of how the takings clause plays out. So that came in my head and I was like, shit, I don't know.

Also re: the fence and easement one. Fuck. I couldn't decide between trespass because he had to go on his land to do it, or that he was privileged. I went with privileged for fucking with his easement? I don't know. I can't even remember.

I put nuisance because I saw the nuisance language in two areas, and the fence was depriving him of his use and enjoyment of the easement. This is laughable analysis though.

[ben bernanke]

Is notice required for the burden of an easement to run?

no, the burden of a covenant runs without notice.

Burden of easement does not run to BFPs.

Cool. So can defeat BFP status with inquiry, constructive or actual notice?

[Emma.]

Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.

didn't it involve a new regulation that required 5 foot offsets off the road??

Was it? I thought the word easement was in there.

It required offsets for the purpose of allowing hikers onto the land. Basically requiring an easement without saying so.

[softey]

What was the answer to the one where the developer had a covenant for single family homes and they built an apartment building. I put he no longer had a property right in the area, but should have chose A (the answer with the weird word I had never heard of before-- pat or pad or something)

Put the same as you

Same--is that NOT the right answer?

[Reinhardt]

What does "notice" consist of? The benefit runs without "notice" but I'm not sure how you'd even know you have a benefit to enforce if there's no notice.

[usuaggie]

What about that schmuck who had the deed in his hand and everyone told him to just write his name on it, but he refused and the grantor died?

I had no clue but I said A. Don't remember what it was. Not because he recorded, not because he was an agent, not because of a future interest turning to FSA. The other one lol

[Old Gregg]

Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.

According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.

It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.

[randomdandom]

Is notice required for the burden of an easement to run?

no, the burden of a covenant runs without notice.

Wait, what? I thought notice WAS required for covenants (intent, touch and concern, privities, notice)

For the burden to run:
Writing
Intent
Touch and Concern
Horizontal Privity
Notice

For the Benefit to run
Writing
Intent
Touch and Concern
Vertical Privity

Equitable Servitudes
Writing
intent
touch and concern
notice

I think I wrote it wrong before - i need to write out all three in that order to get it right. lol.

[JDCA2012]

Can someone quickly, just in case, explain to me the rules for what happens in a land k where the k has more land than the actual property, and vice versa? Much appreciated

Depends. There's an essay on this. Force specific performance as a buyer, get abatement of price for whatever isn't in the actual land that the K said was there.

[huckabees]

Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.

didn't it involve a new regulation that required 5 foot offsets off the road??

Was it? I thought the word easement was in there.

It required offsets for the purpose of allowing hikers onto the land. Basically requiring an easement without saying so.

Would someone be willing to spell out the question and analysis? Asking bc easements might be on essays tomorrow and I don't remember this question well enough to follow the discussion here

[TaipeiMort]

I've never read anything on CA Civ Pro. Should I review that tonight, or keep memorizing all my other outlines? What are the chances of business associations, partnerships, or agency?

[Old Gregg]

What does "notice" consist of? The benefit runs without "notice" but I'm not sure how you'd even know you have a benefit to enforce if there's no notice.

Benefits of easements pass w/o notice.

Benefits of covenants need notice to run. Notice=Actual, constructive, record.

[Old Gregg]

Is notice required for the burden of an easement to run?

no, the burden of a covenant runs without notice.

Wait, what? I thought notice WAS required for covenants (intent, touch and concern, privities, notice)

For the burden to run:
Writing
Intent
Touch and Concern
Horizontal Privity
Notice

For the Benefit to run
Writing
Intent
Touch and Concern
Vertical Privity

Equitable Servitudes
Writing
intent
touch and concern
notice

I think I wrote it wrong before - i need to write out all three in that order to get it right. lol.

This is right, but dood's asking about easements, not covenants bro

[usuaggie]

Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.

According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.

It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.

What's the economic use if he isn't allowed to put anything there so hikers can walk on it

[TaipeiMort]

Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.

According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.

It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.

Thats why I chose reg taking-- when I saw "All use" and the fact pattern I selected it without even reading the other answers (cause if I did I would have changed by answer to something else)

[JDCA2012]

What was the answer to the attorney before the grand jury? I just remember answer "A" was something about not revealing client identity when it would link him to crime or something?

[Old Gregg]

Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.

According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.

It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.

Thats why I chose reg taking-- when I saw "All use" and the fact pattern I selected it without even reading the other answers (cause if I did I would have changed by answer to something else)

I chose whatever answer had investment-backed expectations in it.

[funkyturds]

What about that schmuck who had the deed in his hand and everyone told him to just write his name on it, but he refused and the grantor died?

I had no clue but I said A. Don't remember what it was. Not because he recorded, not because he was an agent, not because of a future interest turning to FSA. The other one lol

I put this too, but I think it's wrong. A was something about after-acquired title doctrine. According to wikipedia, it has nothing to do with the question.

[jmhendri]

Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.

According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.

It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.

A regulatory taking is the equivalent of a zoning law. Not allowing you to do something with your prop that would normally expect to be able to do. A physical taking is like when the gov puts a power line under your house (i.e. a forced easement).

[randomdandom]

This is right, but dood's asking about easements, not covenants bro

aren't easements real covenants or else equitable servitudes?!

[TaipeiMort]

Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.

According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.

It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.

What's the economic use if he isn't allowed to put anything there so hikers can walk on it

It is the Lake Tahoe case. They can still sit on their land even though they can't build on it.

[Old Gregg]

Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.

According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.

It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.

What's the economic use if he isn't allowed to put anything there so hikers can walk on it

You're thinking of the areas used for set-off as isolated property, not parts of the larger property.

[Old Gregg]

This is right, but dood's asking about easements, not covenants bro

aren't easements real covenants or else equitable servitudes?!

Nope.

[huckabees]

What about that schmuck who had the deed in his hand and everyone told him to just write his name on it, but he refused and the grantor died?

I had no clue but I said A. Don't remember what it was. Not because he recorded, not because he was an agent, not because of a future interest turning to FSA. The other one lol

I put this too, but I think it's wrong. A was something about after-acquired title doctrine. According to wikipedia, it has nothing to do with the question.

I said recordation bc that presumes delivery. The other answers had nothing to do with the question? Not that recordation was all that great of an answer