Average Adapti bar score Forum

[FinallyPassedTheBar]

Here's my progress on adaptibar for the last month. Mixed subjects 30 to 50 questions per day. As you can see I hit a high point a few days ago followed by a real low point just a few days after.

[rcharter1978]

Here's my progress on adaptibar for the last month. Mixed subjects 30 to 50 questions per day. As you can see I hit a high point a few days ago followed by a real low point just a few days after.

check your inbox!!!

[Sue]

Here's my progress on adaptibar for the last month. Mixed subjects 30 to 50 questions per day. As you can see I hit a high point a few days ago followed by a real low point just a few days after.

How do you do that it shows every day?
I would post here how mine shows just the beginning (say I choose 1 month, beginning Jan 16) and the end date, but I don't know how to do that either

[MTBike]

Fucking hell. Every Contracts question I've gotten lately is 10/10 difficulty. Like <20% are getting the correct answer.

This happened to me yesterday. Was a total mindfuck. Every K's question was a ridiculous trick Q testing a small nuance i've never seen. I'm glad it's not just me lol

[THE_U]

Fucking hell. Every Contracts question I've gotten lately is 10/10 difficulty. Like <20% are getting the correct answer.

This happened to me yesterday. Was a total mindfuck. Every K's question was a ridiculous trick Q testing a small nuance i've never seen. I'm glad it's not just me lol

I think I went 33% on K yesterday, when my overall for K is sitting at like 65-66% lol. Definitely not just you.

[FinallyPassedTheBar]

check your inbox!!!

I'm an email hoarder

[FinallyPassedTheBar]

How do you do that it shows every day?
I would post here how mine shows just the beginning (say I choose 1 month, beginning Jan 16) and the end date, but I don't know how to do that either

On the left side of the main screen, click on: performance > subject analysis

Then you can adjust the graph to show any date range

[Sue]

How do you do that it shows every day?
I would post here how mine shows just the beginning (say I choose 1 month, beginning Jan 16) and the end date, but I don't know how to do that either

On the left side of the main screen, click on: performance > subject analysis

Then you can adjust the graph to show any date range

Thanks, but what I meant is, your graph shows your daily performance for every single day with dates within last month, but mine shows only start and end dates and gives the overall performance within the range I choose. Say I choose 1/19-2/19 from Custom, and Submit the graph, it only comes with overall performance for last month, does not show the days within last month. I'd explain myself better if I could post the image here, but it is off.

[THE_U]

How do you do that it shows every day?
I would post here how mine shows just the beginning (say I choose 1 month, beginning Jan 16) and the end date, but I don't know how to do that either

On the left side of the main screen, click on: performance > subject analysis

Then you can adjust the graph to show any date range

Thanks, but what I meant is, your graph shows your daily performance for every single day with dates within last month, but mine shows only start and end dates and gives the overall performance within the range I choose. Say I choose 1/19-2/19 from Custom, and Submit the graph, it only comes with overall performance for last month, does not show the days within last month. I'd explain myself better if I could post the image here, but it is off.

Same exact thing happening to me. Dunno why.

[MTBike]

How do you do that it shows every day?
I would post here how mine shows just the beginning (say I choose 1 month, beginning Jan 16) and the end date, but I don't know how to do that either

On the left side of the main screen, click on: performance > subject analysis

Then you can adjust the graph to show any date range

Thanks, but what I meant is, your graph shows your daily performance for every single day with dates within last month, but mine shows only start and end dates and gives the overall performance within the range I choose. Say I choose 1/19-2/19 from Custom, and Submit the graph, it only comes with overall performance for last month, does not show the days within last month. I'd explain myself better if I could post the image here, but it is off.

If you want the days listed along the x-axis, the widest range you can go 1 month ish. I'm guessing the "bottom" of your range is still at the default (2/29). If you changed the range to 1/20 - 2/19, it should work. (EDIT: 1/19 - 2/19 does NOT work, but 1/20 - 2/19 does.)

[Sue]

How do you do that it shows every day?
I would post here how mine shows just the beginning (say I choose 1 month, beginning Jan 16) and the end date, but I don't know how to do that either

On the left side of the main screen, click on: performance > subject analysis

Then you can adjust the graph to show any date range

Thanks, but what I meant is, your graph shows your daily performance for every single day with dates within last month, but mine shows only start and end dates and gives the overall performance within the range I choose. Say I choose 1/19-2/19 from Custom, and Submit the graph, it only comes with overall performance for last month, does not show the days within last month. I'd explain myself better if I could post the image here, but it is off.

If you want the days listed along the x-axis, the widest range you can go 1 month ish. I'm guessing the "bottom" of your range is still at the default (2/29). If you changed the range to 1/20 - 2/19, it should work. (EDIT: 1/19 - 2/19 does NOT work, but 1/20 - 2/19 does.)

Oh, now I see. It was 1/19-2/19. I changed it to 2/18, now it shows the days as well. Thanks! It is one crazy arrhythmia I have there!

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

When is it okay for the cops to search the TRUNK of a car? This topic confuses me to no end.

When it's a search incident to lawful arrest of a driver, they can search just the passenger compartment. Right?

If they get a search warrant for the car, they can search the whole thing. Right?

One more variation: Let's say they validly search the trunk of the car and find a locked briefcase in the trunk. Do they need a separate warrant to search the briefcase?

[FinallyPassedTheBar]

When is it okay for the cops to search the TRUNK of a car? This topic confuses me to no end.

When it's a search incident to lawful arrest of a driver, they can search just the passenger compartment. Right?

If they get a search warrant for the car, they can search the whole thing. Right?

One more variation: Let's say they validly search the trunk of the car and find a locked briefcase in the trunk. Do they need a separate warrant to search the briefcase?

I believe that upon a lawful arrest of the driver, the cops may search the entire car as an "inventory search" for their own "safety". So if they can search the trunk, with no warrant since it is an "inventory search", they can also open that briefcase.

But just on a traffic stop, the cops may only search whatever is in reach of the driver, so a trunk search is off limits. Sort of similar to a "pat down search" during a Terry stop. Maybe I am wrong on this.

[THE_U]

When is it okay for the cops to search the TRUNK of a car? This topic confuses me to no end.

When it's a search incident to lawful arrest of a driver, they can search just the passenger compartment. Right?

If they get a search warrant for the car, they can search the whole thing. Right?

One more variation: Let's say they validly search the trunk of the car and find a locked briefcase in the trunk. Do they need a separate warrant to search the briefcase?

Police can search a trunk (including bags in there) when they have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is in there (I.e. Drugs). For example, if I get pulled over for speeding and police smell marijuana. They can essentially search the entire car---trunk, cabin, glove box, bags. Warrants never are needed for cars. The automobile exception (what I described above) applies because of the mobility of cars and the difficulty in getting a warrant in consideration of that.

You are correct that a search incident to arrest is limited to the cabin. For a SITA, D must be either unrestrained or the cop must think there is evidence of the crime D is getting arrested for. Remember, SITA is a separate concept from the Automobile exception

[THE_U]

When is it okay for the cops to search the TRUNK of a car? This topic confuses me to no end.

When it's a search incident to lawful arrest of a driver, they can search just the passenger compartment. Right?

If they get a search warrant for the car, they can search the whole thing. Right?

One more variation: Let's say they validly search the trunk of the car and find a locked briefcase in the trunk. Do they need a separate warrant to search the briefcase?

I believe that upon a lawful arrest of the driver, the cops may search the entire car as an "inventory search" for their own "safety". So if they can search the trunk, with no warrant since it is an "inventory search", they can also open that briefcase.

But just on a traffic stop, the cops may only search whatever is in reach of the driver, so a trunk search is off limits. Sort of similar to a "pat down search" during a Terry stop. Maybe I am wrong on this.

Yeah that's not right. Inventory search is not based on safety and doesn't come up how you are describing. Inventory searches occur when a police impounds your vehicle and they do an inventory of your car to make sure that you can't later accuse them that something is missing from your car (although they often use inventory searches to try to fish IRL)

In a traffic stop, police can search wherever they want, including the trunk or any suitcases/bags, if they develop PC that a crime has been committed (again, they pull you over and smell marijuana). I wouldn't think of the automobile exception as related to Terry at all.

[FinallyPassedTheBar]

When is it okay for the cops to search the TRUNK of a car? This topic confuses me to no end.

When it's a search incident to lawful arrest of a driver, they can search just the passenger compartment. Right?

If they get a search warrant for the car, they can search the whole thing. Right?

One more variation: Let's say they validly search the trunk of the car and find a locked briefcase in the trunk. Do they need a separate warrant to search the briefcase?

I believe that upon a lawful arrest of the driver, the cops may search the entire car as an "inventory search" for their own "safety". So if they can search the trunk, with no warrant since it is an "inventory search", they can also open that briefcase.

But just on a traffic stop, the cops may only search whatever is in reach of the driver, so a trunk search is off limits. Sort of similar to a "pat down search" during a Terry stop. Maybe I am wrong on this.

Yeah that's not right. Inventory search is not based on safety and doesn't come up how you are describing. Inventory searches occur when a police impounds your vehicle and they do an inventory of your car to make sure that you can't later accuse them that something is missing from your car (although they often use inventory searches to try to fish IRL)

In a traffic stop, police can search wherever they want, including the trunk or any suitcases/bags, if they develop PC that a crime has been committed (again, they pull you over and smell marijuana). I wouldn't think of the automobile exception as related to Terry at all.

But if the cops arrest the driver, wouldn't they impound the car?

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

When is it okay for the cops to search the TRUNK of a car? This topic confuses me to no end.

When it's a search incident to lawful arrest of a driver, they can search just the passenger compartment. Right?

If they get a search warrant for the car, they can search the whole thing. Right?

One more variation: Let's say they validly search the trunk of the car and find a locked briefcase in the trunk. Do they need a separate warrant to search the briefcase?

Police can search a trunk (including bags in there) when they have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is in there (I.e. Drugs). For example, if I get pulled over for speeding and police smell marijuana. They can essentially search the entire car---trunk, cabin, glove box, bags. Warrants never are needed for cars. The automobile exception (what I described above) applies because of the mobility of cars and the difficulty in getting a warrant in consideration of that.

You are correct that a search incident to arrest is limited to the cabin. For a SITA, D must be either unrestrained or the cop must think there is evidence of the crime D is getting arrested for. Remember, SITA is a separate concept from the Automobile exception

Okay, so the only time they can't search the trunk is when it's a SITA and they do not have probable cause

[THE_U]

When is it okay for the cops to search the TRUNK of a car? This topic confuses me to no end.

When it's a search incident to lawful arrest of a driver, they can search just the passenger compartment. Right?

If they get a search warrant for the car, they can search the whole thing. Right?

One more variation: Let's say they validly search the trunk of the car and find a locked briefcase in the trunk. Do they need a separate warrant to search the briefcase?

I believe that upon a lawful arrest of the driver, the cops may search the entire car as an "inventory search" for their own "safety". So if they can search the trunk, with no warrant since it is an "inventory search", they can also open that briefcase.

But just on a traffic stop, the cops may only search whatever is in reach of the driver, so a trunk search is off limits. Sort of similar to a "pat down search" during a Terry stop. Maybe I am wrong on this.

Yeah that's not right. Inventory search is not based on safety and doesn't come up how you are describing. Inventory searches occur when a police impounds your vehicle and they do an inventory of your car to make sure that you can't later accuse them that something is missing from your car (although they often use inventory searches to try to fish IRL)

In a traffic stop, police can search wherever they want, including the trunk or any suitcases/bags, if they develop PC that a crime has been committed (again, they pull you over and smell marijuana). I wouldn't think of the automobile exception as related to Terry at all.

But if the cops arrest the driver, wouldn't they impound the car?

Not necessarily. They usually impound your car when it's just you in the car and there is no one who can come pick up/drive the car.

[THE_U]

When is it okay for the cops to search the TRUNK of a car? This topic confuses me to no end.

When it's a search incident to lawful arrest of a driver, they can search just the passenger compartment. Right?

If they get a search warrant for the car, they can search the whole thing. Right?

One more variation: Let's say they validly search the trunk of the car and find a locked briefcase in the trunk. Do they need a separate warrant to search the briefcase?

Police can search a trunk (including bags in there) when they have probable cause to believe evidence of a crime is in there (I.e. Drugs). For example, if I get pulled over for speeding and police smell marijuana. They can essentially search the entire car---trunk, cabin, glove box, bags. Warrants never are needed for cars. The automobile exception (what I described above) applies because of the mobility of cars and the difficulty in getting a warrant in consideration of that.

You are correct that a search incident to arrest is limited to the cabin. For a SITA, D must be either unrestrained or the cop must think there is evidence of the crime D is getting arrested for. Remember, SITA is a separate concept from the Automobile exception

Okay, so the only time they can't search the trunk is when it's a SITA and they do not have probable cause

Yup.

[FinallyPassedTheBar]

Not necessarily. They usually impound your car when it's just you in the car and there is no one who can come pick up/drive the car.

Oh ok that makes sense.

[Raiden]

I just did a 100 custom exam for all topics excluding civ pro. I think it's harder than the OPE's, though some of the questions are still familiar. At 1600 questions, I've completed all Con law questions and they are just repeating now.

[Raiden]

Need help on a real property question:

QUESTION:

The owner of Newacre executed and delivered to a power company a right-of-way deed for the building and maintenance of an overhead power line across Newacre. The deed was properly recorded. Newacre then passed through several intermediate conveyances until it was conveyed to a new owner about ten years after the date of the right-of-way deed. All the intermediate deeds were properly recorded, but none of them mentioned the right-of-way.

The new owner entered into a written contract to sell Newacre to a developer. By the terms of the contract, the new owner promised to furnish an abstract of title to the developer. The new owner contracted directly with an abstract company to prepare and deliver an abstract to the developer, and the abstract company did so. The abstract omitted the right-of-way deed. The developer delivered the abstract to his attorney and asked the attorney for an opinion as to title. The attorney signed and delivered to the developer a letter stating that, from the attorney's examination of the abstract, it was his "opinion that the new owner had a free and unencumbered marketable title to Newacre."

The new owner conveyed Newacre to the developer by a deed which included covenants of general warranty and against encumbrances. The developer paid the full purchase price. After the developer had been in possession of Newacre for more than a year, he learned about the right-of-way deed. The new owner, the developer, the abstract company, and the developer's attorney were all without actual knowledge of the existence of the right-of-way to the conveyance from the new owner to the developer.

If the developer sues the new owner because of the presence of the right-of-way, the most likely result will be a decision for


A. the developer, because the new owner is liable for his negligent misrepresentation.

B. the developer, because the covenants in the new owner's deed to the developer have been breached.

C. the new owner, because the developer relied upon the abstract company, not the new owner, for information concerning title.

D. the new owner, because the new owner was without knowledge of any defects in the title to Newacre.

EXPLANATION:

B is the correct answer. The new owner made two guarantees to the developer when he conveyed Newacre: (1) a present title covenant against encumbrances warranting that there were no easements or other interests in third parties that would diminish the developer's ownership rights, and (2) a future title covenant of warranty which guaranteed that the new owner's title to Newacre was good, and that the new owner would assist in defending that title against claims by third parties. Consequently, C and D can be eliminated immediately; the new owner made the guarantees and will be held liable for his warranties, despite the fact that he hired the abstract company to research title and was not personally aware of the information regarding the power company's right of way. That leaves A and B. A is incorrect because this is not an issue of misrepresentation. The new owner did not make a false statement of material fact; he relied upon the same abstract information that the developer did in purchasing Newacre. B appropriately addresses the issue of the breach of covenants and is the best answer under the facts. A, C and D are incorrect.


Now...I know that marketable title merges into the deed, but what is the point of that if a party can still essentially claim an encumbrance from from an easement through a general warranty? I feel like I've been cheated on all the questions in the past of where the answer was that a buyer doesn't have a claim of an easement because marketable title merges after closing and being conveyed a general warranty deed.

[MTBike]

Need help on a real property question:

QUESTION:

The owner of Newacre executed and delivered to a power company a right-of-way deed for the building and maintenance of an overhead power line across Newacre. The deed was properly recorded. Newacre then passed through several intermediate conveyances until it was conveyed to a new owner about ten years after the date of the right-of-way deed. All the intermediate deeds were properly recorded, but none of them mentioned the right-of-way.

The new owner entered into a written contract to sell Newacre to a developer. By the terms of the contract, the new owner promised to furnish an abstract of title to the developer. The new owner contracted directly with an abstract company to prepare and deliver an abstract to the developer, and the abstract company did so. The abstract omitted the right-of-way deed. The developer delivered the abstract to his attorney and asked the attorney for an opinion as to title. The attorney signed and delivered to the developer a letter stating that, from the attorney's examination of the abstract, it was his "opinion that the new owner had a free and unencumbered marketable title to Newacre."

The new owner conveyed Newacre to the developer by a deed which included covenants of general warranty and against encumbrances. The developer paid the full purchase price. After the developer had been in possession of Newacre for more than a year, he learned about the right-of-way deed. The new owner, the developer, the abstract company, and the developer's attorney were all without actual knowledge of the existence of the right-of-way to the conveyance from the new owner to the developer.

If the developer sues the new owner because of the presence of the right-of-way, the most likely result will be a decision for


A. the developer, because the new owner is liable for his negligent misrepresentation.

B. the developer, because the covenants in the new owner's deed to the developer have been breached.

C. the new owner, because the developer relied upon the abstract company, not the new owner, for information concerning title.

D. the new owner, because the new owner was without knowledge of any defects in the title to Newacre.

EXPLANATION:

B is the correct answer. The new owner made two guarantees to the developer when he conveyed Newacre: (1) a present title covenant against encumbrances warranting that there were no easements or other interests in third parties that would diminish the developer's ownership rights, and (2) a future title covenant of warranty which guaranteed that the new owner's title to Newacre was good, and that the new owner would assist in defending that title against claims by third parties. Consequently, C and D can be eliminated immediately; the new owner made the guarantees and will be held liable for his warranties, despite the fact that he hired the abstract company to research title and was not personally aware of the information regarding the power company's right of way. That leaves A and B. A is incorrect because this is not an issue of misrepresentation. The new owner did not make a false statement of material fact; he relied upon the same abstract information that the developer did in purchasing Newacre. B appropriately addresses the issue of the breach of covenants and is the best answer under the facts. A, C and D are incorrect.


Now...I know that marketable title merges into the deed, but what is the point of that if a party can still essentially claim an encumbrance from from an easement through a general warranty? I feel like I've been cheated on all the questions in the past of where the answer was that a buyer doesn't have a claim of an easement because marketable title merges after closing and being conveyed a general warranty deed.

It's usually a trick with the call of the question. If they are suing under a "break of K" theory or a breach of a warranty in the deed. The ones you get wrong because the K "merged" with the deed are usually when the buyer is suing for breach under the land sale contract (no marketable title at closing), but it's after closing and the deed is a quit-claim deed or special warranty deed.

Essentially, if there's a warranty in the land sale contract that isnt in the deed, then the buyer cant sue for a breach of that warranty after closing.

[DueProcessDoWheelies]

I don't understand this property question at all. The explanation didn't make sense.

A land owner owned in fee simple Lots 1 and 2 in an urban subdivision. The lots were vacant and unproductive. They were held as a speculation that their value would increase. The land owner died and, by his duly probated will, devised the residue of his estate (of which Lots 1 and 2 were part) to his sister for life with remainder in fee simple to his niece. The land owner's executor distributed the estate under appropriate court order, and notified the sister that future real estate taxes on Lots 1 and 2 were her responsibility to pay.

Except for the statutes relating to probate and those relating to real estate taxes, there is no applicable statute.

The sister failed to pay the real estate taxes due for Lots 1 and 2. To prevent a tax sale of the fee simple, the niece paid the taxes and demanded that the sister reimburse her for same. When the sister refused, the niece brought an appropriate action against the sister to recover the amount paid.

In such action, the niece should recover

A. the amount paid, because a life tenant has the duty to pay current charges.
B. the present value of the interest that the amount paid would earn during the sister's lifetime.
C. nothing, because the sister's sole possession gave the right to decide whether or not taxes should be paid.
D. nothing, because the sister never received any income from the lots.

I was sure the answer was A, because the LT has the duty to pay taxes on the land. 72% of people picked A, as a matter of fact.

Very difficult question.

[NY_Sea]

I don't understand this property question at all. The explanation didn't make sense.

A land owner owned in fee simple Lots 1 and 2 in an urban subdivision. The lots were vacant and unproductive. They were held as a speculation that their value would increase. The land owner died and, by his duly probated will, devised the residue of his estate (of which Lots 1 and 2 were part) to his sister for life with remainder in fee simple to his niece. The land owner's executor distributed the estate under appropriate court order, and notified the sister that future real estate taxes on Lots 1 and 2 were her responsibility to pay.

Except for the statutes relating to probate and those relating to real estate taxes, there is no applicable statute.

The sister failed to pay the real estate taxes due for Lots 1 and 2. To prevent a tax sale of the fee simple, the niece paid the taxes and demanded that the sister reimburse her for same. When the sister refused, the niece brought an appropriate action against the sister to recover the amount paid.

In such action, the niece should recover

A. the amount paid, because a life tenant has the duty to pay current charges.
B. the present value of the interest that the amount paid would earn during the sister's lifetime.
C. nothing, because the sister's sole possession gave the right to decide whether or not taxes should be paid.
D. nothing, because the sister never received any income from the lots.

I was sure the answer was A, because the LT has the duty to pay taxes on the land. 72% of people picked A, as a matter of fact.

Very difficult question.

Pretty sure the rule is that the LT is responsible for taxes that arise from the use of the land, like rent or something. The real estate taxes are not from the "use" of the land because you would have to pay those even if no one lived on the land.

Just my thought, but as always, I could be wrong lol