BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[LawGuy321]

Really need some help with the essays here, I've put off really doing them after my graded essay, but want to start up again. How many do you guys suggest doing open book vs. closed book?
I feel like I usually "get" the answer, but leave out elements of the rule too much. Don't know the best targeted way to rectify this.

Mostly closed book. Hate to tell you this but it's July now. The point is to feel like shit now so you learn the parts you missed.

Ummm... ::nervous breakdown breathing:: Can i just say... ::breathes erratically:: that unless you're in Tokyo... ::grabs armchair vigorously:: it's still JUNE...?!

Breathe. You are the calm one, remember?

I love you.

[musicfor18]

I keep on getting the same supplemental jurisdiction questions wrong, and the answer explanations aren't really explaining the rule --

In a case based on diversity jurisdiction where Citizen A from State A sues Citizen B from State B for >75k, and Citizen B from State B joins Citizen C from State B for a case arising from the same nucleus of fact, is joinder proper?

My understanding was because Citizen B would be the plaintiff against Citizen C in theory so the case is thrown out of federal court.... I'm assuming I'm wrong, but what's the rule?

Yes, there is supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. The "no claims by plaintiffs" rule you're thinking of applies only to original plaintiffs, not third-party plaintiffs, etc.

AND I think it needs to be same T/O right? you can't get supplemental jurisdiction unless there's T/O?

Yeah for whatever reason that one's easy for me to understand. It would be crazy to bring in completely unrelated lawsuits into the case. Like if you sued George Bush for a fender-bender, and then Bush sued Gore over the 2000 election - would be insane.

The concept of D1 being allowed to sue D2 for damages is harder for me to wrap my head around, because she's essentially acting like a plaintiff in that claim. I guess it's to preclude D1 from being able to weasel the case outta federal court? IDK it's annoying - slacked way too much for way too long to not understand stuff in 1 go.

The concept behind the exclusion from supplemental jurisdiction for Ps is to prevent Ps, who choose the forum, from circumventing the complete diversity requirement. Since Ds don't choose the forum, we don't have that concern with them, even when they join impleader claims or cross claims, etc.

[LawGuy321]

I keep on getting the same supplemental jurisdiction questions wrong, and the answer explanations aren't really explaining the rule --

In a case based on diversity jurisdiction where Citizen A from State A sues Citizen B from State B for >75k, and Citizen B from State B joins Citizen C from State B for a case arising from the same nucleus of fact, is joinder proper?

My understanding was because Citizen B would be the plaintiff against Citizen C in theory so the case is thrown out of federal court.... I'm assuming I'm wrong, but what's the rule?

Yes, there is supplemental jurisdiction over that claim. The "no claims by plaintiffs" rule you're thinking of applies only to original plaintiffs, not third-party plaintiffs, etc.

AND I think it needs to be same T/O right? you can't get supplemental jurisdiction unless there's T/O?

Yeah for whatever reason that one's easy for me to understand. It would be crazy to bring in completely unrelated lawsuits into the case. Like if you sued George Bush for a fender-bender, and then Bush sued Gore over the 2000 election - would be insane.

The concept of D1 being allowed to sue D2 for damages is harder for me to wrap my head around, because she's essentially acting like a plaintiff in that claim. I guess it's to preclude D1 from being able to weasel the case outta federal court? IDK it's annoying - slacked way too much for way too long to not understand stuff in 1 go.

I don't think it's about weaseling -- if anything the federal courts want FEWER cases in federal court (why do you think it's so hard to get in?). I think of it more as judicial efficiency/public policy. It's inefficient for our citizens to spend their lives in courtrooms, so if it's the same T/O, let everything in, except for those things that aren't diversity and the original plaintiff is bring it -- in that case, we actualyl want to encourage the P to bring everything in state court, ex ante, so we're not going to let her sneak this claim in federal court when she shouldn't have to.

Note: the reasoning also makes sense why original P can bring federal question in federal court and then have free option to get supplemental over ANYthing under same T/O. Why? Because in federal question cases, we actually WANT to hear those cases because they're federal law. Everything else: it's gonna be hard to get it.

[gmail]

Is it realistic to study for the bar using only Barbri AMP?

[Blue Ivy]

With easements, if it's an easement appurtenant it runs with the land whether or not the easement was mentioned in the conveyance, so notice to subsequent owners is not needed to continue receiving the benefit of the easement.

However, under that same easement, when it comes to the servient owner, that's when notice is necessary. The subsequent owner must have either actual or inquiry notice. Is this right?

[musicfor18]

Is it realistic to study for the bar using only Barbri AMP?

No. Not at all.

[Tiago Splitter]

With easements, if it's an easement appurtenant it runs with the land whether or not the easement was mentioned in the conveyance, so notice to subsequent owners is not needed to continue receiving the benefit of the easement.

However, under that same easement, when it comes to the servient owner, that's when notice is necessary. The subsequent owner must have either actual or inquiry notice. Is this right?

Yup. Don't need notice if you're gonna get a sweet deal anyways as the buyer of the dominant estate. You would need notice if you're buying a piece of property that is burdened by an easement.

[musicfor18]

With easements, if it's an easement appurtenant it runs with the land whether or not the easement was mentioned in the conveyance, so notice to subsequent owners is not needed to continue receiving the benefit of the easement.

However, under that same easement, when it comes to the servient owner, that's when notice is necessary. The subsequent owner must have either actual or inquiry notice. Is this right?

99.9% sure you're correct. To be more succinct, easements appurtenant run with the land, so long as the owner of the servient estate has notice (actual, inquiry, or record notice). Owner of the benefited estate doesn't need notice; but, that person won't be able to get the benefit of the easement if the servient estate owner took the land without notice of the easement.

[Neff]

Most big firms let you fail the bar at least once, right?

[a male human]

Really need some help with the essays here, I've put off really doing them after my graded essay, but want to start up again. How many do you guys suggest doing open book vs. closed book?
I feel like I usually "get" the answer, but leave out elements of the rule too much. Don't know the best targeted way to rectify this.

Mostly closed book. Hate to tell you this but it's July now. The point is to feel like shit now so you learn the parts you missed.

Ummm... ::nervous breakdown breathing:: Can i just say... ::breathes erratically:: that unless you're in Tokyo... ::grabs armchair vigorously:: it's still JUNE...?!

I exaggerated a bit, but I'm glad you had a bargasm from it.

[AReasonableMan]

With easements, if it's an easement appurtenant it runs with the land whether or not the easement was mentioned in the conveyance, so notice to subsequent owners is not needed to continue receiving the benefit of the easement.

However, under that same easement, when it comes to the servient owner, that's when notice is necessary. The subsequent owner must have either actual or inquiry notice. Is this right?

99.9% sure you're correct. To be more succinct, easements appurtenant run with the land, so long as the owner of the servient estate has notice (actual, inquiry, or record notice). Owner of the benefited estate doesn't need notice; but, that person won't be able to get the benefit of the easement if the servient estate owner took the land without notice of the easement.

it would have to be recorded to bind subsequent servient bfp's just like anything else. but i've done my first 200 q's over the past 4 days and only have about 50 percent right so don't trust me.

is there a bfp-inheritance/gift distinction with this like there is for other conveyances?

on failing once, that's true but you're risking becoming the white shoe wall street in equivalent of the village idiot in an old roman village. just replace cheap wine with single malt scotch, and it's the same thing.

[3|ink]

Is it realistic to study for the bar using only Barbri AMP?

[Blue Ivy]

Who are the measuring lives under the RAP? The lives in being language is tripping me up.

[3|ink]

Can a contract be indefinite? Say a distributor agrees to supply manufacturer a certain quantity of product every month for an unspecified period. And say three months into the contract, with 29 days remaining before the next shipment, the distributor tells the manufacturer that it is backing out.

Barbri says that's anticipatory repudiation. I would say there's no contract.

Even a requirements contract has to specify a duration, right?

[3|ink]

Who are the measuring lives under the RAP? The lives in being language is tripping me up.

Yeah I had the same problem. My lecturer called it the "relevant" life.

[myrtlewinston]

Who are the measuring lives under the RAP? The lives in being language is tripping me up.

Yeah I had the same problem. My lecturer called it the "relevant" life.

1. Look for someone who is alive at the daye of conveyance.
2. Is he relevant to the condition precedent?
3. If so, he is a measuring life.

[jamescastle]

Can a contract be indefinite? Say a distributor agrees to supply manufacturer a certain quantity of product every month for an unspecified period. And say three months into the contract, with 29 days remaining before the next shipment, the distributor tells the manufacturer that it is backing out.

Barbri says that's anticipatory repudiation. I would say there's no contract.

Even a requirements contract has to specify a duration, right?

Contract duration is not required to be a valid contract.

Gap-filling provisions will read a reasonable time into the contract if no time is given or if it seems to read as an indefinite contract. Additionally, to end the contract, one party will need to give notice to the other party a reasonable time in advance.

Please someone else correct me if I'm wrong.

[jamescastle]

Who are the measuring lives under the RAP? The lives in being language is tripping me up.

Yeah I had the same problem. My lecturer called it the "relevant" life.

1. Look for someone who is alive at the daye of conveyance.
2. Is he relevant to the condition precedent?
3. If so, he is a measuring life.

The trick for me is knowing when to look for that someone since it depends on the conveyance. Here's what I have in my notes so someone correct me if I'm wrong:

• Deed: Date of delivery
  Revocable trust: The date the trust becomes irrevocable
  Irrevocable trust: Date of creation
  Will: Date of testator's death

So on that date you can point to anyone presently alive and they could function as the life in being.

[BVest]

Who are the measuring lives under the RAP? The lives in being language is tripping me up.

Yeah I had the same problem. My lecturer called it the "relevant" life.

It has to be an identifiable person at the time of the transfer.

Focus on the parties to the transfer. Are they specific people (to Bob for life and then to Karen if still living, otherwise to Fred)? If so you're probably in good shape.

Are they just classes/roles (my son's widow, my children, my siblings)? If so, you need to look further. For classes like children and siblings (where their status does not change over time), if there are members of that class already living at the time of the transfer but the class could in the remotest sense be re-opened, then you might have a problem, but only if there is a distant future interest separated by more than one degree from a known person. For example "To James for life and then to James' children" is fine, because, even though James' children is a class that can be opened in the future, it will close and the children will all fully vest within 21 years (actually within 9 months) of James' death. If, however, you say "To James for life, and then to James' children for life, and then to James' grandchildren," you're not OK. By adding the extra layer of a class you've let RAP sneak in.

The other way to let an extra layer sneak in is to add an age factor. For example "To James for life and then to James' children when they reach 35" is subject to RAP. You still have James as a life in being, and you still will know who his kids are by the time he dies, but the kids in this example don't vest until they are 35 years old, which CAN be more than 21 years after James' death. (If, however, you said "To James for life and then to James' children who have attained the age of 35 at the time of his death" you're OK again; the vesting takes place immediately upon James' death.)

I hope that helped and wasn't just more confusing. If the latter, please ignore it.

[BVest]

The trick for me is knowing when to look for that someone since it depends on the conveyance. Here's what I have in my notes so someone correct me if I'm wrong:

• Deed: Date of delivery
  Revocable trust: The date the trust becomes irrevocable
  Irrevocable trust: Date of creation
  Will: Date of testator's death

So on that date you can point to anyone presently alive and they could function as the life in being.

I almost include this in my too-long post above. If you don't remember the full list from above, just remember that you look for the life on the date that the transferor may no longer undo the transfer, as that's what the above dates all point to.

[AReasonableMan]

Can a contract be indefinite? Say a distributor agrees to supply manufacturer a certain quantity of product every month for an unspecified period. And say three months into the contract, with 29 days remaining before the next shipment, the distributor tells the manufacturer that it is backing out.

Barbri says that's anticipatory repudiation. I would say there's no contract.

Even a requirements contract has to specify a duration, right?

Contract duration is not required to be a valid contract.

Gap-filling provisions will read a reasonable time into the contract if no time is given or if it seems to read as an indefinite contract. Additionally, to end the contract, one party will need to give notice to the other party a reasonable time in advance.

Please someone else correct me if I'm wrong.

yeah even if it's oral it is still valid (i think) - the court would just make it 1 year. can 1 party get out with reasonable notice if the other party says no? there's no collateral damages if the other party has to spend more to cover their need?

[ohhoney]

How important do y'all think it is to do the "Simulated Half Day Essay Exam"? I slacked today and went to Jurassic World (worth it!) instead of getting to these practice essays. Did everyone actually write out everything under timed conditions, or do we think it's okay to just outline some answers and work on timing later? I guess what I'm really asking is how crucial is it that I practice writing timed essays at this stage in the game?

[corgibutts18]

Just got my graded MPT back. I'm not sure if Barbri likes to send people over the edge, or if I'm just really, actually dumb. They were incredibly harsh. Ouch.

[Charger]

Can someone explain this to me? I don't understand the answer. (This came from PMBR.)

=============

A speech pathologist owned the building in which she had her business. When she decided to marry, she wanted to move, so she arranged to sell the building to an ear, nose, and throat doctor for $350,000. They entered into a written sales contract, which provided a closing date of March 1, at which time the doctor was to submit full payment to the speech pathologist in exchange for the deed to the property. On March 1, however, the speech pathologist and her new husband spontaneously decided to take a weekend trip, and she failed to deliver the title to the doctor.
If the doctor sues immediately for breach of contract, will he prevail?

A Yes, because the speech pathologist's tender of the title was a condition precedent to the doctor's obligation to pay $350,000.
B Yes, if the doctor was prepared to tender his payment of $350,000 on March 1.
C No, unless the doctor paid the speech pathologist $350,000 on March 1.
D No, because the contract contained no "time is of the essence" clause.

The correct answer is: Yes, if the doctor was prepared to tender his payment of $350,000 on March 1.
Discussion of correct answer: Concurrent conditions are those that are mutually dependent and are to be performed at the same time. Any contract for the sale of real property contains concurrent conditions, in that each party's performance is conditioned upon the other party's performance, and both conditions can occur at the same time. If one party breaches the agreement, the aggrieved party, prior to filing a breach of contract action, must show that he did perform or was prepared to perform his contractual duties. In this case, under the parties' contract, the speech pathologist was to tender the title to the building and the doctor was to tender payment of $350,000. The speech pathologist's tendering the title was a condition of the doctor's obligation to pay, and his tendering of payment was likewise a condition of the speech pathologist's obligation to tender the title. To be entitled to recover in a breach of contract action against the speech pathologist for her failure to tender title, the doctor is first required to show either that he paid or was prepared to pay the agreed-upon amount. Having shown that he was prepared to meet his contractual obligation, the doctor could then sue the speech pathologist for her failure to perform.

Incorrect answer: No, because the contract contained no "time is of the essence" clause.
Discussion of incorrect answer: In contracts for the sale of land, time is not considered to be "of the essence" unless expressly stated in the contract or the parties have by their conduct manifested an understanding that time is of the essence. While it is true that there are no facts indicating that time was of the essence in the parties' agreement, this factor has little relevance to the issue of whether the doctor is entitled to recover in a breach of contract action against the speech pathologist. The doctor's right to recover in a breach of contract action against the speech pathologist based on her failure to perform does not hinge upon whether time was of the essence, but on whether the doctor fulfilled or was prepared to fulfill his duties under the contract. As such, this response is incorrect.

==========================

I'm confused. I thought the rule was that if there is no "time is of the essence clause" then either party can perform within a reasonable time. The answer even acknowledges this. So, why is it that even though there's no "time is of the essence clause" here, the doctor can sue immediately on March 1? If the pathologist can still perform within a reasonable time, doesn't that mean there's no breach?

[jamescastle]

From my understanding this is a contract question and not a property question.
We are looking at concurrent conditions. The effect of a concurrent condition is that when one of the conditions occurs, performance via the other concurrent condition is due immediately.

That said, I think if I were given this question in an MBE setting (i.e. mixed in randomly with other questions and not looking at a block of 20 questions in one subject), I would have probably narrowed it down to B) and D) and picked D) more than half the time.