July 2015 California Bar Exam Forum

[wishyfishy]

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/07/californ ... ys-to-two/

This made me very sad.

[redblueyellow]

How would they adjust the essay/PT day? Make the PTs shorter? More essays, but 30 min instead of 1hr?

I don't know; having only 30 minutes to write an essay doesn't give much time to outline, think, and then recall the rules if they're not hardwired into your brain.

But, the prompts would likely be much shorter, simpler, and maybe not as intense. Either way, not much we can do about it now.

[acronyx]

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/07/californ ... ys-to-two/

This made me very sad.

They couldn't announce this on Friday?

[Underoath]

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/07/californ ... ys-to-two/

This made me very sad.

They couldn't announce this on Friday?

No words.

[a male human]

How would they adjust the essay/PT day? Make the PTs shorter? More essays, but 30 min instead of 1hr?

I don't know; having only 30 minutes to write an essay doesn't give much time to outline, think, and then recall the rules if they're not hardwired into your brain.

But, the prompts would likely be much shorter, simpler, and maybe not as intense. Either way, not much we can do about it now.

Probably something similar to this?

"Back in March, Excess of Democracy reported that that California was weighing a proposal to alter the test format to include one day of essays (5 one-hour essays and a 90-minute performance test) and one day of the MBE, with both days weighed equally."

I'm def working on my "back in my day" spiel.

[Calicakes]

Quick Community Property Questions:
If CP is spent towards an educational degree, but it doesn't end up increasing the spouse's earning capacity (let's say the wifey went and got a real stupid degree), is the community still entitled to a reimbursement for the tuition alone?

Also, what if the spouse only marginally benefited from the earning capacity, but ten years had already elapsed for the expensive degree? Is the community entitled to reimbursement for tuition despite the time elapsed since the degree was earned?

Lastly, if a husband incurred a massive amount of gambling debt during the marriage, is this presumed to be the community's liability? What would the wife want to do in this situation? Would she try to trace the money he gambled with to SP?

The last example really did happen to me. I was married to a Canadian though and lived in Canada. I did not find out about it until I went to my lawyers office to sign separation papers and saw the financial disclosures. My ex was trying to attribute all the gambling debt to me and thankfully, that was NOT allowed in Ontario, Canada.

[Calicakes]

People commuting in without a car/hotel room to store shit, are you leaving your phone at home or just leaving it in a bag in the hallway? What's the norm? It'd be nice to have on my way in in case something goes wrong with my travel plans, but obv not mission critical.

I would leave it in the car and bring the key with me, so there is no risk of losing my phone.

Also, I was walking by Sac convention center and felt the chill down my core. I am definitely not ready for this.

Reading Comprehension!!!

No Car. "People commuting in without a car".

[gaagoots]

.

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

Can someone explain to me the policy reason for why it's harder to enforce a covenant than an equitable servitude? I just can't wrap my head around why you'd want to make it tougher for someone to get damages (for a covenant) than injunctive relief (equitable servitude).

[Poopface]

Hi all,

Just wanted to send everyone good wishes on tomorrow's exam! I took it in February and was totally, utterly, convinced I failed. I realized after the MBE day that I'd gotten a number of questions wrong that were usually easy for me, and I was literally making stabs in the dark on my second day of essays because I got my worse subjects (trusts, biz orgs, remedies) that I had barely had time to study.

I was in fact SO convinced I failed that I booked hotels and plane tickets and told my judge I'd need a week off to take it again. Fortunately, I was wrong, and when I requested my MBE waive-in checks for MN/ND/DC, it turned out my MBE was well north of passing, even though I felt certain I had bombed it.

The test is designed to make you think you did horribly, because it's impossible to learn it all. But partial credit counts, so even if you don't know for sure, make it up, provide a lot of analysis, and be thorough in your answers. Use every single minute, and have clear headings, subheadings, and underline important holdings, conclusions, etc. My entire trusts essay was bullshit because I had literally spent about 1.5 hours total learning trusts. Yet somehow I wrote almost 2,000 words as an answer.

Moral of the story? Don't give up! Stick to your guns, analyze the hell out of every single fact you see, and remember that the VAST majority of people walk out feeling like they failed, and lots of them still pass. Repress the urge to throw in the towel, and fight to the very end. GOOD LUCK!

And yes - the hoodie rule is not enforced at all. In my Oakland test center, there were dozens of people rocking the hoodie, which was fine as long as it was down. And you are allowed to bring a laptop charger in.

very encouraging thank you

[redblueyellow]

OK, I could be losing it here:

FRCP - Diversity

A Dude dies (unknown state). He has a life insurance policy worth $500k. Beneficiary is listed as the Son (state A). Insurance company is located in state B. Daughter claims that the beneficiary form is incorrect and she has the correct form making her the beneficiary (state A). Daughter sues insurance company in fed dist court in state B.

Insurance company makes a motion to dismiss for failure to join the son as a party. Court agrees, orders joinder of the son, and then dismisses for lack of complete diversity.

Which of the following is correct:

1. the daughter will not be barred from refiling the action in a state court, because dismissal on the grounds of FRCP 12b7 (failure to join a party) does not constitute an adjudication on the merits.
2. the court should not have dismissed the action, because there was diversity between daughter and the insurance company.

The correct answer is 1, but the reasoning for why 2 is wrong is confusing. It says "the fact that diversity exists between daughter and insurance company does not preclude dismissal for lack of SMJ (the daughter and the son both being from the same state). Diversity must exist between all plaintiffs and all defendants.

Diversity is supposed to be looked at if there are same states of citizenship on "both sides of the v." Here, there are two state A plaintiffs and one state B defendant. How is that not complete diversity?

[redblueyellow]

Can someone explain to me the policy reason for why it's harder to enforce a covenant than an equitable servitude? I just can't wrap my head around why you'd want to make it tougher for someone to get damages (for a covenant) than injunctive relief (equitable servitude).

The only thing I can think of relates to a negative reciprocal servitude.

A covenant requires that the successor in land of a burdened estate have "notice" that the burden exists.

However, in a negative reciprocal servitude, the "notice" requirement can include actual, inquiry, or record. The covenant version doesn't delineate between the types of notice, so I'm thinking it requires actual notice. Since inquiry and record notice are easier to satisfy than actual notice, an equitable servitude is likely easier to show.

[BuenAbogado]

OK, I could be losing it here:

FRCP - Diversity

A Dude dies (unknown state). He has a life insurance policy worth $500k. Beneficiary is listed as the Son (state A). Insurance company is located in state B. Daughter claims that the beneficiary form is incorrect and she has the correct form making her the beneficiary (state A). Daughter sues insurance company in fed dist court in state B.

Insurance company makes a motion to dismiss for failure to join the son as a party. Court agrees, orders joinder of the son, and then dismisses for lack of complete diversity.

Which of the following is correct:

1. the daughter will not be barred from refiling the action in a state court, because dismissal on the grounds of FRCP 12b7 (failure to join a party) does not constitute an adjudication on the merits.
2. the court should not have dismissed the action, because there was diversity between daughter and the insurance company.

The correct answer is 1, but the reasoning for why 2 is wrong is confusing. It says "the fact that diversity exists between daughter and insurance company does not preclude dismissal for lack of SMJ (the daughter and the son both being from the same state). Diversity must exist between all plaintiffs and all defendants.

Diversity is supposed to be looked at if there are same states of citizenship on "both sides of the v." Here, there are two state A plaintiffs and one state B defendant. How is that not complete diversity?

The insurance added son as defendant. She is now suing insurance and son. Son likely fabricated the form or used an old one, and he is indispensable to the action. State A vs State A and B. No diversity.

[redblueyellow]

OK, I could be losing it here:

FRCP - Diversity

A Dude dies (unknown state). He has a life insurance policy worth $500k. Beneficiary is listed as the Son (state A). Insurance company is located in state B. Daughter claims that the beneficiary form is incorrect and she has the correct form making her the beneficiary (state A). Daughter sues insurance company in fed dist court in state B.

Insurance company makes a motion to dismiss for failure to join the son as a party. Court agrees, orders joinder of the son, and then dismisses for lack of complete diversity.

Which of the following is correct:

1. the daughter will not be barred from refiling the action in a state court, because dismissal on the grounds of FRCP 12b7 (failure to join a party) does not constitute an adjudication on the merits.
2. the court should not have dismissed the action, because there was diversity between daughter and the insurance company.

The correct answer is 1, but the reasoning for why 2 is wrong is confusing. It says "the fact that diversity exists between daughter and insurance company does not preclude dismissal for lack of SMJ (the daughter and the son both being from the same state). Diversity must exist between all plaintiffs and all defendants.

Diversity is supposed to be looked at if there are same states of citizenship on "both sides of the v." Here, there are two state A plaintiffs and one state B defendant. How is that not complete diversity?

The insurance added son as defendant. She is now suing insurance and son. Son likely fabricated the form or used an old one, and he is indispensable to the action. State A vs State A and B. No diversity.

Ah, thanks. I thought it was the court telling the sister to join the brother on her side, but I suppose in context, this does not make sense. It would have to be the insurance company adding the party!

[californiabarprep]

Anyone know if Advil is allowed?

[redblueyellow]

Anyone know if Advil is allowed?

Yes; just keep a few tablets in your pocket.

[BrokenMouse]

lol

[fadedsunrise]

I shouldn't have studied today. Anybody experiencing sudden memory loss of all your studies? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!! I think im nervous.

I studied in the morning, experienced emotional distress, then proceeded to game/online window shop. Priorities=in order.

[californiabarprep]

Anyone know if Advil is allowed?

Yes; just keep a few tablets in your pocket.

lol mann... so we have to hide it in? cuz the test instructions only let us "officially" bring in "prescription drugs"?

[chem]

Almost had a heart attack today. Went to scope out the test center in Oakland. They had a sign that said California State Bar Exam. Underneath, it said 830 AM, exam room grand hall.

The sign also said Monday. 7/27. Left me thinking the bar started today and I missed it. Almost threw up on the spot

[a male human]

Almost had a heart attack today. Went to scope out the test center in Oakland. They had a sign that said California State Bar Exam. Underneath, it said 830 AM, exam room grand hall.

The sign also said Monday. 7/27. Left me thinking the bar started today and I missed it. Almost threw up on the spot

that's fucked up

[BrokenMouse]

lol

[rshin12]

So, what time should we *really* arrive? Is 8 really OK?

[a male human]

What are you guys doing to get the jitters out of your system? I'm pretty nervous and for whatever reason my confidence level shot down dramatically as of this morning. I think this is just psychological (forgetting easy rules I'd normally remember etc)

Take deep breaths (hold them in if you have to) and realize you just have to do your best.

[SpAcEmAn SpLiFF]

Quick last minute question:
Dormant commerce clause vs privileges and immunities of Article 4: is there an easy way to know which one to apply? Are there a lot of essay situations where you can argue both?