BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 (UBE -NY) Forum

[JoeySkoko]

question re: admissibility of old convictions (on dishonesty offenses)

BarBri is extremely unclear about this.

DOES the 10 year rule apply to dishonesty convictions? BarBri suggests no, but FR 609 suggests there is no carve out, would merely be a balancing test.

[jj252525]

question re: admissibility of old convictions (on dishonesty offenses)

BarBri is extremely unclear about this.

DOES the 10 year rule apply to dishonesty convictions? BarBri suggests no, but FR 609 suggests there is no carve out, would merely be a balancing test.

I was/am under the impression from the lecture that the 10 year rule applies to all convictions. Dishonesty/fraud-related convictions will be admitted automatically, but will only be admitted after ten years assuming the court determines the balancing test is met. But correct me if I'm wrong.

[JoeySkoko]

question re: admissibility of old convictions (on dishonesty offenses)

BarBri is extremely unclear about this.

DOES the 10 year rule apply to dishonesty convictions? BarBri suggests no, but FR 609 suggests there is no carve out, would merely be a balancing test.

I was/am under the impression from the lecture that the 10 year rule applies to all convictions. Dishonesty/fraud-related convictions will be admitted automatically, but will only be admitted after ten years assuming the court determines the balancing test is met. But correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree - its just that both BarBri and Critical Pass doesn't make this clear. Thanks - I will go with our train of thought!

[jj252525]

OPE-4, Question 70

[+] Spoiler

Can anyone provide some feedback on why the answer isn't D? In this instance the women acquired title by adverse possession. How can she convey to the son without quieting title through the courts? The answer says the son is now the rightful owner

[JoeySkoko]

OPE-4, Question 70

[+] Spoiler

My theory is when it says "the character and duration of the possession of the woman caused her to become the owner of the farm under the adverse possession law of the Jx" this means she did what she had to do to get title, no further action requried

that's the only way i can reconcile it...

[LionelHutzJD]

WARNING:

Do not purchase OPE-3 if you own Emmanuel's.

[Itwasluck]

OPE-4, Question 70

[+] Spoiler

My theory is when it says "the character and duration of the possession of the woman caused her to become the owner of the farm under the adverse possession law of the Jx" this means she did what she had to do to get title, no further action requried

that's the only way i can reconcile it...

[+] Spoiler

I believe she can still convey title so long as the taker of title does not raise the issue of unmarketability. If she were selling the land, and the buyer were to raise the issue of unmarketability prior to closing, then I think there would be a problem. I thought of this situation as similar to a quitclaim deed where the woman was simply conveying whatever interest she had

[mvp99]

had a panic attack last night... but then I remembered we only need a D+ to pass.. WE CAN DO THIS!!!!

[JoeySkoko]

OPE-4, Question 70

[+] Spoiler

My theory is when it says "the character and duration of the possession of the woman caused her to become the owner of the farm under the adverse possession law of the Jx" this means she did what she had to do to get title, no further action requried

that's the only way i can reconcile it...

[+] Spoiler

I believe she can still convey title so long as the taker of title does not raise the issue of unmarketability. If she were selling the land, and the buyer were to raise the issue of unmarketability prior to closing, then I think there would be a problem. I thought of this situation as similar to a quitclaim deed where the woman was simply conveying whatever interest she had

hmm but I thought that the buyer only wants marketable title as it doesn't want someone to swoop in and be like "you don't have title, as your seller didn't quiet title to prove your AP interest".

I'm not sure that just because the new "owner" of the AP land didn't contest the marketability, this means that the AP title is perfected vis a vis the 3rd parties.

(if that makes sense at all)

[mvp99]

question re: admissibility of old convictions (on dishonesty offenses)

BarBri is extremely unclear about this.

DOES the 10 year rule apply to dishonesty convictions? BarBri suggests no, but FR 609 suggests there is no carve out, would merely be a balancing test.

I was/am under the impression from the lecture that the 10 year rule applies to all convictions. Dishonesty/fraud-related convictions will be admitted automatically, but will only be admitted after ten years assuming the court determines the balancing test is met. But correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree - its just that both BarBri and Critical Pass doesn't make this clear. Thanks - I will go with our train of thought!

My understanding is that the test technically always applied but for convictions involving dishonesty and not older than 10 years this test is 99.99999% of the time met (critical pass seems to agree).

Prior convictions Felonies (non-dishonesty) - 403 applicable, if the witness is the defendant then gov. must show probative value outweighs prejudice

Prior convictions Misdemeanors - MUST involve dishonesty

Prior Conviction involving dishonesty - In real life, always admissible although 403 still applies

Convictions more than 10 years old - Not admissible unless probative value substantially outweighs unfair prejudice (note: same as in Rape cases for character ) and notice of use is given. This includes felonies and misdemeanors involving dishonesty.

[mvp99]

OPE-4, Question 70

[+] Spoiler

My theory is when it says "the character and duration of the possession of the woman caused her to become the owner of the farm under the adverse possession law of the Jx" this means she did what she had to do to get title, no further action requried

that's the only way i can reconcile it...

[+] Spoiler

I believe she can still convey title so long as the taker of title does not raise the issue of unmarketability. If she were selling the land, and the buyer were to raise the issue of unmarketability prior to closing, then I think there would be a problem. I thought of this situation as similar to a quitclaim deed where the woman was simply conveying whatever interest she had

hmm but I thought that the buyer only wants marketable title as it doesn't want someone to swoop in and be like "you don't have title, as your seller didn't quiet title to prove your AP interest".

I'm not sure that just because the new "owner" of the AP land didn't contest the marketability, this means that the AP title is perfected vis a vis the 3rd parties.

(if that makes sense at all)

Could you give me a key word in the question so I could look it up?

[JoeySkoko]

OPE-4, Question 70

[+] Spoiler

My theory is when it says "the character and duration of the possession of the woman caused her to become the owner of the farm under the adverse possession law of the Jx" this means she did what she had to do to get title, no further action requried

that's the only way i can reconcile it...

[+] Spoiler

I believe she can still convey title so long as the taker of title does not raise the issue of unmarketability. If she were selling the land, and the buyer were to raise the issue of unmarketability prior to closing, then I think there would be a problem. I thought of this situation as similar to a quitclaim deed where the woman was simply conveying whatever interest she had

hmm but I thought that the buyer only wants marketable title as it doesn't want someone to swoop in and be like "you don't have title, as your seller didn't quiet title to prove your AP interest".

I'm not sure that just because the new "owner" of the AP land didn't contest the marketability, this means that the AP title is perfected vis a vis the 3rd parties.

(if that makes sense at all)

Could you give me a key word in the question so I could look it up?

question 70 on OPE 4- "nineteen years ago".... "did some plowing".... "woman withdrew"...

[Itwasluck]

OPE-4, Question 70

[+] Spoiler

My theory is when it says "the character and duration of the possession of the woman caused her to become the owner of the farm under the adverse possession law of the Jx" this means she did what she had to do to get title, no further action requried

that's the only way i can reconcile it...

[+] Spoiler

I believe she can still convey title so long as the taker of title does not raise the issue of unmarketability. If she were selling the land, and the buyer were to raise the issue of unmarketability prior to closing, then I think there would be a problem. I thought of this situation as similar to a quitclaim deed where the woman was simply conveying whatever interest she had

hmm but I thought that the buyer only wants marketable title as it doesn't want someone to swoop in and be like "you don't have title, as your seller didn't quiet title to prove your AP interest".

I'm not sure that just because the new "owner" of the AP land didn't contest the marketability, this means that the AP title is perfected vis a vis the 3rd parties.

(if that makes sense at all)

[+] Spoiler

I think this is why the buyer should conduct a title search prior to taking title. The buyer definitely wants title free of any claims, but unless they protect themselves from the possibility of receiving unmarketable title they may be out of luck. Remember that if the buyer does not object to the unmarketability of title prior to or at closing the contract and the deed merger and thus the buyer loses the ability to raise a violation of the implied warranty of marketability.

I'm not sure the buyer's mindset is relevant to the question specifically being asked here. I think the way to look at the question is "did the seller have an interest capable of being conveyed?" In this case, the answer is yes because she was the owner of the land through satisfaction of the state's adverse possession laws. Being an owner, she can transfer whatever rights she has, unless a law provides that she cannot. In this case, had the transferee of the land objected on the grounds that the title was unmarketable the woman would then be unable to transfer the land to that buyer because of the implied warranty of marketability doctrine. But since the transferee did not make any objections, the woman is allowed to transfer whatever rights she owns.

If the transferee would like to sell the land, and a potential buyer raises a marketability issue prior to or at closing, then the transferee will need to quite title before being able to sell to that buyer.

[mvp99]

OPE-4, Question 70

[+] Spoiler

My theory is when it says "the character and duration of the possession of the woman caused her to become the owner of the farm under the adverse possession law of the Jx" this means she did what she had to do to get title, no further action requried

that's the only way i can reconcile it...

[+] Spoiler

I believe she can still convey title so long as the taker of title does not raise the issue of unmarketability. If she were selling the land, and the buyer were to raise the issue of unmarketability prior to closing, then I think there would be a problem. I thought of this situation as similar to a quitclaim deed where the woman was simply conveying whatever interest she had

hmm but I thought that the buyer only wants marketable title as it doesn't want someone to swoop in and be like "you don't have title, as your seller didn't quiet title to prove your AP interest".

I'm not sure that just because the new "owner" of the AP land didn't contest the marketability, this means that the AP title is perfected vis a vis the 3rd parties.

(if that makes sense at all)

Could you give me a key word in the question so I could look it up?

question 70 on OPE 4- "nineteen years ago".... "did some plowing".... "woman withdrew"...

The previous poster is right.

[+] Spoiler

The lady had acquired title through adverse possession.The women did convey unmarketable title to the son but any possible claim for unmarketable title dies with delivery (contract "merges" with the deed). Remember that unmarketable title is a counterweight to the doctrine of equitable conversion. It's a way to stop a seller from forcing specific performance on the buyer that knows the title is unmarketable and asks the seller to address the issue. The state of mind of the buyer is largely irrelevant (probably completely irrelevant). Buy doesn't claim unmarketable title then that cause of action dies with delivery period (but know that even if the land with an otherwise unmarketable title is conveyed using a quitclaim deed, the buyer might have other real defenses such as misrepresentation, fraud but it won't be unmarketable title). The son can then bring an action to quiet title and his privity with the women will allow him to quiet all claims.

[lawstoodent]

WARNING:

Do not purchase OPE-3. Just went through the first ten questions and i'm certain i've seen all of these questions in Barbri. I wasted $50

Really? Just went through all 100. Most of them haven't seen from Barbri. Also the wording of the questions are very different. But, I already bought adaptibar so I have no reason not to do them.

[LionelHutzJD]

WARNING:

Do not purchase OPE-3. Just went through the first ten questions and i'm certain i've seen all of these questions in Barbri. I wasted $50

Really? Just went through all 100. Most of them haven't seen from Barbri. Also the wording of the questions are very different. But, I already bought adaptibar so I have no reason not to do them.

I think I meant Emmanuels. If you have Strategies and Tactics don't purchase OPE-3. Sorry!

[jj252525]

Sure would have been nice if, for the outrageous amount of money Barbri was paid, taught us secured transactions more fully. Instead there's a new rule on every essay that costs me oodles of points.

[Br3v]

Got 12/21 correct on that free NCBE thing. Doesn't feel good at all.

~SLIGHT SPOILERS~



Dog trespass Q (#4):

[+] Spoiler

A man has four German shepherd dogs that he has trained for guard duty and that he holds for breeding purposes. The man has “Beware of Dogs” signs clearly posted around a fenced-in yard where he keeps the dogs. The man’s next-door neighbor frequently walks past the man’s house and knows about the dogs’ ferocity. One summer day, the neighbor entered the man’s fenced-in yard to retrieve a snow shovel that the man had borrowed during the past winter. The neighbor was attacked by one of the dogs and was severely injured

Correct answer: No, because the neighbor knew that the man had dan-gerous dogs in the yard.

I chose: No, because the neighbor was trespassing when he entered the man’s property.

Why is the trespass answer not correct? The guy was trespassing, and the homeowner met his duty to known or anticipated trespassers. The only explanation I can think of is because the guy was retrieving his shovel from a few months ago, he had some sort of license to be there? But even then, the homeowner met his duty to licensees and invitees with the signs.

Guardianship Q (# 11)

[+] Spoiler

So is it a basic rule that if you are under guardianship, a contract is void no matter what? I assume because of lack of capacity (ben if the person is temporary lucid)

Designated representative Q (#14)

[+] Spoiler

What the heck is a designated representative? What limits are placed on a designated representative? None? They can just sit there and listen to testimony and then testify themselves?

Grand Jury (#19)

[+] Spoiler

Can someone explain to me the difference between prior testimony non-hearsay and prior testimony hearsay exception? I assume the latter (hearsay exception) is the one when you need to have had a chance to develop the testimony (aka a grand jury wouldn't work because no cross), whereas non-hearsay works in a grand jury because you just need to be present at current trial and the prior statement was under oath?

[LionelHutzJD]

Got 12/21 correct on that free NCBE thing. Doesn't feel good at all.

~SLIGHT SPOILERS~



Dog trespass Q (#4):

[+] Spoiler

A man has four German shepherd dogs that he has trained for guard duty and that he holds for breeding purposes. The man has “Beware of Dogs” signs clearly posted around a fenced-in yard where he keeps the dogs. The man’s next-door neighbor frequently walks past the man’s house and knows about the dogs’ ferocity. One summer day, the neighbor entered the man’s fenced-in yard to retrieve a snow shovel that the man had borrowed during the past winter. The neighbor was attacked by one of the dogs and was severely injured

Correct answer: No, because the neighbor knew that the man had dan-gerous dogs in the yard.

I chose: No, because the neighbor was trespassing when he entered the man’s property.

Why is the trespass answer not correct? The guy was trespassing, and the homeowner met his duty to known or anticipated trespassers. The only explanation I can think of is because the guy was retrieving his shovel from a few months ago, he had some sort of license to be there? But even then, the homeowner met his duty to licensees and invitees with the signs.

Guardianship Q (# 11)

[+] Spoiler

So is it a basic rule that if you are under guardianship, a contract is void no matter what? I assume because of lack of capacity (ben if the person is temporary lucid)

Designated representative Q (#14)

[+] Spoiler

What the heck is a designated representative? What limits are placed on a designated representative? None? They can just sit there and listen to testimony and then testify themselves?

Grand Jury (#19)

[+] Spoiler

Can someone explain to me the difference between prior testimony non-hearsay and prior testimony hearsay exception? I assume the latter (hearsay exception) is the one when you need to have had a chance to develop the testimony (aka a grand jury wouldn't work because no cross), whereas non-hearsay works in a grand jury because you just need to be present at current trial and the prior statement was under oath?

Yes.

[Itwasluck]

Got 12/21 correct on that free NCBE thing. Doesn't feel good at all.

~SLIGHT SPOILERS~



Dog trespass Q (#4):

[+] Spoiler

A man has four German shepherd dogs that he has trained for guard duty and that he holds for breeding purposes. The man has “Beware of Dogs” signs clearly posted around a fenced-in yard where he keeps the dogs. The man’s next-door neighbor frequently walks past the man’s house and knows about the dogs’ ferocity. One summer day, the neighbor entered the man’s fenced-in yard to retrieve a snow shovel that the man had borrowed during the past winter. The neighbor was attacked by one of the dogs and was severely injured

Correct answer: No, because the neighbor knew that the man had dan-gerous dogs in the yard.

I chose: No, because the neighbor was trespassing when he entered the man’s property.

Why is the trespass answer not correct? The guy was trespassing, and the homeowner met his duty to known or anticipated trespassers. The only explanation I can think of is because the guy was retrieving his shovel from a few months ago, he had some sort of license to be there? But even then, the homeowner met his duty to licensees and invitees with the signs.

Guardianship Q (# 11)

[+] Spoiler

So is it a basic rule that if you are under guardianship, a contract is void no matter what? I assume because of lack of capacity (ben if the person is temporary lucid)

Designated representative Q (#14)

[+] Spoiler

What the heck is a designated representative? What limits are placed on a designated representative? None? They can just sit there and listen to testimony and then testify themselves?

Grand Jury (#19)

[+] Spoiler

Can someone explain to me the difference between prior testimony non-hearsay and prior testimony hearsay exception? I assume the latter (hearsay exception) is the one when you need to have had a chance to develop the testimony (aka a grand jury wouldn't work because no cross), whereas non-hearsay works in a grand jury because you just need to be present at current trial and the prior statement was under oath?

[+] Spoiler

I think the answer to #4 ties into using unreasonable force to protect property. I remember seeing something about liability for guard dogs if they are simply protecting property rather than your person. Since there is uncontrolled force (potentially deadly?) force being used to simply protect the land the only way the landowner gets out of it is under an assumption of risk theory. FYI I got this wrong as well so I am not 100% sure but this is what I came up with after thinking on it.

#11 - Yes, only knew this because my professor mentioned it 1L and for whatever reason it stuck
Would love a good, concise explanation of #19 as well.

Edited 3 times because my brain is gone

[SLS_AMG]

Also missed #4, but upon looking over it again remembered:

[+] Spoiler

comparative negligence is a defense to strict liability?

Also, I can't imagine the 21 questions are representative of all the questions. They are way harder than the questions from just 3 years ago on OPE-4. Perhaps there's a mixture of questions like OPE-1/2/3/4 and these questions, with half or more being like the OPEs? That would explain both (a) why most people do better than they think they did post-exam and (b) why people feel totally wrecked walking out of the exam.

[mvp99]

I dont understand why its not voidable instead of void.

[Itwasluck]

Also missed #4, but upon looking over it again remembered:

[+] Spoiler

comparative negligence is a defense to strict liability?

At this point, I just throw my hands up and laugh when I see the answers

[Itwasluck]

I dont understand why its not voidable instead of void.

Since there has been legal guardianship appointed it is void. If he were simply incompetent without guardianship, it would be voidable

[mvp99]

at this point I feel that studying is like eating. Yea I eat something new and its nice but something has to come out on the other end.