California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum

[jmhendri]

See, that's where its confusing. Is an easement a physical occupation (like a power line), or a restriction on alienation (like an order not to build on part of your land)? I'm guessing the former-- I wish I would of actually read the answer choices.

90% sure its a physical taking.

[Emma.]

What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?

[Old Gregg]

This was my understanding of this as well. But FreshPrince seems pretty sure of it, so idk. For me, a gov't ordering you to clear your land to allow for pedestrians to walk across it all day, seemed like physical taking, but yeah, idk.

I actually wasn't aware of tbe distinction you were all discussing, but now that I read it you could be right. All I remember was that there was still economically viable use of the land because teh dude could still use his property aside from the set-offs and I thjought that was a hint. whatevs.

[Emma.]

See, that's where its confusing. Is an easement a physical occupation (like a power line), or a restriction on alienation (like an order not to build on part of your land)? I'm guessing the former-- I wish I would of actually read the answer choices.

90% sure its a physical taking.

Yeah, an easement is a per se physical occupation, per Scalia.

[her??]

what about the forged deed, was that void?

what that regarding tenants in common? and the brother got a mortgage secured by their property and forged the sister's name? I don't remember what I put or the answers...

[JDCA2012]

what about the forged deed, was that void?

I said so. Only because I had a question with that identical pattern awhile ago, and I THINK that it was the answer - I mean, how could we go around operating if we let people sell stuff they didn't ever own, then come claim it as if the sale was legit? Their remedy would be against the fraud person, not to get the prop. Was my answer (since you know, there wasn't like subsequent BFP and all that, right? If I am thinking of same one).

WTF MBE anyway, why do so many fucking people deed away their prop to multiple people? Jesus

[spartjdawg]

What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?

Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.

[softey]

what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question

I said best evidence

How sure are you on this? I know business records are self-authenticating. I thought an affidavit or testimony from a custodian was sufficient.

Voluminous docs exception – summary testimony OK where originals available for inspection

[Old Gregg]

But absence of record seems fully applicable too.

I thought it was too easy to pick that. It was my first choice before I changed it to BER. Reminded me of the doctor summarizing x-rays rather than just admitting the x-rays. also violates BER.

[Emma.]

what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question

I put absence of entry in biz records. That one was actually a typical MBE question ::gasp:: Like we had any of those today.

Sucks for me if experimental

That would be true if they were admitting the actual business records. However, they just wanted the custodian of the records to come up and testify as to the absence. That's when BER came in IMO.

The thing is it was a log - gives you the idea of some big book. So BER says admit the book. But absence of record seems fully applicable too.

That question sucked. I chose BER after going back and forth for ages.

[randomdandom]

What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?

Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.

this. to AP property you don't actually occupy (i.e., the other 60 acres) you need color of title.

And fresh prince, how you gonna leave me hanging on the easement stuff?

[somethingdemure]

This was my understanding of this as well. But FreshPrince seems pretty sure of it, so idk. For me, a gov't ordering you to clear your land to allow for pedestrians to walk across it all day, seemed like physical taking, but yeah, idk.

I actually wasn't aware of tbe distinction you were all discussing, but now that I read it you could be right. All I remember was that there was still economically viable use of the land because teh dude could still use his property aside from the set-offs and I thjought that was a hint. whatevs.

Yeah easement taking doesn't need to show no economically viable use. Think installing cable lines.
Problem with that question is that the problem didn't say the owner had to actually LET ANYONE ON, just offset the fence. Seems weird to call that an easement. But I put easement as my answer tho.

[Mroberts3]

PT - B will probably have us as legislative aides. A state senator will give us a copy of the Magna Carta, an article from Guns & Ammo, and flyer for a local mattress sale and tell us to draft a new Columbia state constitution

That would actually be fun...if for no other reason that you literally couldn't get a "wrong" answer. Just write a goddamn constitution to your heart's content!

[Old Gregg]

Voluminous docs exception – summary testimony OK where originals available for inspection

Yeah, but IDK didn't think there was enough in the stimulus to trigger that exception. Could be wrong.

[TaipeiMort]

See, that's where its confusing. Is an easement a physical occupation (like a power line), or a restriction on alienation (like an order not to build on part of your land)? I'm guessing the former-- I wish I would of actually read the answer choices.

90% sure its a physical taking.

Me too.

[softey]

What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?

Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.

this. to AP property you don't actually occupy (i.e., the other 60 acres) you need color of title.

And fresh prince, how you gonna leave me hanging on the easement stuff?

he did use it though, right? it was "wooded" and he hiked through it

[Old Gregg]

What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?

Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.

this. to AP property you don't actually occupy (i.e., the other 60 acres) you need color of title.

And fresh prince, how you gonna leave me hanging on the easement stuff?

Too tired. But yeah you need to read up on what easements are vs. covenants, how easements are created terminated and run with the land and don't run with the land. It's a separate doctrine (though not terribly different from covenants, so not too hard to get up to speed on).

[AntiHuman]

EMERGENCY:

I know i've beaten this to death on this forum and I understand nobody can predict anything, but I currently have reviewed half of remedies and have not reviewed ANYTHING at all for civ pro, agency/partnership, and corporations...

With 4 hours remaining before bedtime, should I just put full force into remedies and pray that 3 subjects dont appear? I know that 1 more CA subject will appear....it could be a full blown remedies or trust/wills? Pray to the Lawd it is not agency/corp/civpro

[somethingdemure]

What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?

Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.

this. to AP property you don't actually occupy (i.e., the other 60 acres) you need color of title.

And fresh prince, how you gonna leave me hanging on the easement stuff?

he did use it though, right? it was "wooded" and he hiked through it

The Q went out of its way to say the use was sporadic, so not continuous

[thrillerjesus]

I talked to someone at a different test site that had a question about a couple that wanted to have a baby but some law about embryos was burdening religion or something?? I 100% did not have that question on my exam.

Did you see these questions?

1. Some guy waiving his right to counsel but said he would accept fancy criminal lawyer at courts expense
2. tenant and landlord orally agreed that tenant would buy property and improved it and the landlord sold it to someone else
3. Multiple questions relating to grand jury proceedings, and one about a sentencing hearing
4. Federal law about immigration regulation/stopping vehicles but there was a long tradition of federal/state working together
5. I remember two defamation questions, I think both were in employment contexts

oh god there are so many more I cannot adequately describe. I had many narrowed down to two choices and feel like it is possible that I made the wrong choice for each of them! ahhh!

Yeah I had the embryos. Damn. I wish that was a real one/not experimental. Easy points, subst due process on fundamental right to have artificial insemination to have a baby, right? Right?! Or how are we interpreting the fund right to have babies now...

Was that the Free Exercise claim? If so, I think the answer was actually rational basis because it was a law of general applicability, not an intentional interference with religious practice.

Yeah, but general applicability of the right to reproduction? Doesn't matter, subt due process of a fund right = SS

True, but the question I had explicitly said their sole claim was a violation of the FEC, ie they weren't making an SDP claim.

[JDCA2012]

What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?

Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.

But did he get nothing since he only had AP'd it for 6 years of the 14 when the guy died and the daughter had the interest for the next 8?

[TaipeiMort]

This was my understanding of this as well. But FreshPrince seems pretty sure of it, so idk. For me, a gov't ordering you to clear your land to allow for pedestrians to walk across it all day, seemed like physical taking, but yeah, idk.

I actually wasn't aware of tbe distinction you were all discussing, but now that I read it you could be right. All I remember was that there was still economically viable use of the land because teh dude could still use his property aside from the set-offs and I thjought that was a hint. whatevs.

Yeah easement taking doesn't need to show no economically viable use. Think installing cable lines.
Problem with that question is that the problem didn't say the owner had to actually LET ANYONE ON, just offset the fence. Seems weird to call that an easement. But I put easement as my answer tho.

That's why I said regulatory taking. They are saying "we are regulating everyone, you can't do anything with your land within ten feet of the freeway" The same facts as the Lake Tahoe case, but with the purpose of saving people instead of keeping Tahoe blue.

[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.

Isn't that where someone deeds away something they don't have, then later they actually do get it by devise or something, and then the person they gave the "fraud" deed to can actually come get the land from them, in equity?
That's why I didn't choose that one, it was about the only one I knew wasn't it. The agency one I was like uhhh is the court here trying to like make stuff up to make him a de facto agent since he directed him to write his name? I don't even know, that Q sucked

Re: "Fraud deed" - I put it was void. Had something else but changed last minute. dunno

[randomdandom]

What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?

Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.

this. to AP property you don't actually occupy (i.e., the other 60 acres) you need color of title.

And fresh prince, how you gonna leave me hanging on the easement stuff?

he did use it though, right? it was "wooded" and he hiked through it

not for the statutory period? He actually farmed for the statutory period i believe. not sure. i feel like its mostly hypothesizing witthout the actual question in front of us.

[randomdandom]

What about the adverse possession question? Did he get the whole 100 acres, or just the 40 he was farming?

Pretty sure it was the 40 he was farming.

But did he get nothing since he only had AP'd it for 6 years of the 14 when the guy died and the daughter had the interest for the next 8?

i think you can tack on in this situation