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

[mvp99]

RP Set 3 Question 14:

Grantee took "subject to the mortgage" and thus not personally liable. BUT THE VERY NEXT LINE "which obligation grantee expressly ASSUMES." Damnit, Barbri.

When a mortgage is "assumed by" a third party, the seller still can be held secondarily responsible for the mortgage.

I know that but the grantee took subject to the mortgage, which still means the grantor is liable but grantee is not liable. However, the facts say that the grantee then assumed, which is just confusing, because although he originally took "subject to" he now assumes is and is thus liable.

I'm confused by what you're saying. Even if it didn't say "it took subject to" the grantor would be personally liable and the grantee would be liable in his property. The mortgage is simply a lien against the property. If the buyer buys the land without notice and the lien is recorded (or has some sort of notice) I think the buyer still takes the property subject to the lien, which the bank can foreclose upon. If there is not enough money to pay back the debt after the sale, then the bank can get a deficiency judgment. There is no personal liability for mortgages (or a lien on land) when the buyer takes the land subject to the lien but the buyer assumed the "obligation" (which doesn't have to happen necessarily) which is another word for "note" and therefore is personally and primarily liable for the debt. The original mortgagor is now only personally liable for the debt, he owns no property for which there is a lien so there is nothing the bank can foreclose upon. The only way an original mortgagor can get rid of the personal liability is through "novation" I think.

[LionelHutzJD]

RP Set 3 Question 14:

Grantee took "subject to the mortgage" and thus not personally liable. BUT THE VERY NEXT LINE "which obligation grantee expressly ASSUMES." Damnit, Barbri.

When a mortgage is "assumed by" a third party, the seller still can be held secondarily responsible for the mortgage.

I know that but the grantee took subject to the mortgage, which still means the grantor is liable but grantee is not liable. However, the facts say that the grantee then assumed, which is just confusing, because although he originally took "subject to" he now assumes is and is thus liable.

I'm confused by what you're saying. Even if it didn't say "it took subject to" the grantor would be personally liable and the grantee would be liable in his property. The mortgage is simply a lien against the property. If the buyer buys the land without notice and the lien is recorded (or has some sort of notice) I think the buyer still takes the property subject to the lien, which the bank can foreclose upon. If there is not enough money to pay back the debt after the sale, then the bank can get a deficiency judgment. There is no personal liability for mortgages (or a lien on land) when the buyer takes the land subject to the lien but the buyer assumed the "obligation" (which doesn't have to happen necessarily) which is another word for "note" and therefore is personally and primarily liable for the debt. The original mortgagor is now only personally liable for the debt, he owns no property for which there is a lien so there is nothing the bank can foreclose upon. The only way an original mortgagor can get rid of the personal liability is through "novation" I think.

The mortgagor (grantor) always remained liable on the debt in this question. The issue is whether the grantee can be held liable. Although the facts suggests that he took "subject to" and thus would not be liable, he signed an assumption agreement (not sure why a grantee would ever do that) and thus the mortgagee (lendor) became a TPB of this assumption agreement and NOW the grantee is liable to the mortgagee and the original mortgagor (grantor) remains liable as well.

[mvp99]

RP Set 3 Question 14:

Grantee took "subject to the mortgage" and thus not personally liable. BUT THE VERY NEXT LINE "which obligation grantee expressly ASSUMES." Damnit, Barbri.

When a mortgage is "assumed by" a third party, the seller still can be held secondarily responsible for the mortgage.

I know that but the grantee took subject to the mortgage, which still means the grantor is liable but grantee is not liable. However, the facts say that the grantee then assumed, which is just confusing, because although he originally took "subject to" he now assumes is and is thus liable.

I'm confused by what you're saying. Even if it didn't say "it took subject to" the grantor would be personally liable and the grantee would be liable in his property. The mortgage is simply a lien against the property. If the buyer buys the land without notice and the lien is recorded (or has some sort of notice) I think the buyer still takes the property subject to the lien, which the bank can foreclose upon. If there is not enough money to pay back the debt after the sale, then the bank can get a deficiency judgment. There is no personal liability for mortgages (or a lien on land) when the buyer takes the land subject to the lien but the buyer assumed the "obligation" (which doesn't have to happen necessarily) which is another word for "note" and therefore is personally and primarily liable for the debt. The original mortgagor is now only personally liable for the debt, he owns no property for which there is a lien so there is nothing the bank can foreclose upon. The only way an original mortgagor can get rid of the personal liability is through "novation" I think.

The mortgagor (grantor) always remained liable on the debt in this question. The issue is whether the grantee can be held liable. Although the facts suggests that he took "subject to" and thus would not be liable, he signed an assumption agreement (not sure why a grantee would ever do that) and thus the mortgagee (lendor) became a TPB of this assumption agreement and NOW the grantee is liable to the mortgagee and the original mortgagor (grantor) remains liable as well.

Yes, I agree with you. Although I don't know why you would refer to the fact pattern as "suggesting" he took subject to. It is what is, he is took subject to the lien and also assumed the note. These are two different kinds of liability, one is personal and one is in property. I would admit though that it is very sneaky to immediately afterwards say that the buyer assumed the "obligation."

I think buyers do it because sometimes the bank requires the seller to get a buyer who would assume the debt with their approval or pay the balance of the debt.

[LionelHutzJD]

RP Set 3 Question 14:

Grantee took "subject to the mortgage" and thus not personally liable. BUT THE VERY NEXT LINE "which obligation grantee expressly ASSUMES." Damnit, Barbri.

When a mortgage is "assumed by" a third party, the seller still can be held secondarily responsible for the mortgage.

I know that but the grantee took subject to the mortgage, which still means the grantor is liable but grantee is not liable. However, the facts say that the grantee then assumed, which is just confusing, because although he originally took "subject to" he now assumes is and is thus liable.

I'm confused by what you're saying. Even if it didn't say "it took subject to" the grantor would be personally liable and the grantee would be liable in his property. The mortgage is simply a lien against the property. If the buyer buys the land without notice and the lien is recorded (or has some sort of notice) I think the buyer still takes the property subject to the lien, which the bank can foreclose upon. If there is not enough money to pay back the debt after the sale, then the bank can get a deficiency judgment. There is no personal liability for mortgages (or a lien on land) when the buyer takes the land subject to the lien but the buyer assumed the "obligation" (which doesn't have to happen necessarily) which is another word for "note" and therefore is personally and primarily liable for the debt. The original mortgagor is now only personally liable for the debt, he owns no property for which there is a lien so there is nothing the bank can foreclose upon. The only way an original mortgagor can get rid of the personal liability is through "novation" I think.

The mortgagor (grantor) always remained liable on the debt in this question. The issue is whether the grantee can be held liable. Although the facts suggests that he took "subject to" and thus would not be liable, he signed an assumption agreement (not sure why a grantee would ever do that) and thus the mortgagee (lendor) became a TPB of this assumption agreement and NOW the grantee is liable to the mortgagee and the original mortgagor (grantor) remains liable as well.

Yes, I agree with you. Although I don't know why you would refer to the fact pattern as "suggesting" he took subject to. It is what is, he is took subject to the lien and also assumed the note. These are two different kinds of liability, one is personal and one is in property. I would admit though that it is very sneaky to immediately afterwards say that the buyer assumed the "obligation."

I think buyers do it because sometimes the bank requires the seller to get a buyer who would assume the debt with their approval or pay the balance of the debt.

Well I only suggest it because it expressly states it in the facts. I'm certainly no expert on mortgages and i'm glad we can have these thoughtful discussions so we can crush mortgages when it comes time for the real thing.

[jj252525]

These RP questions were the most infuriating thing on the face of the planet. So tired of Barbri. I get their goal is to "scare people" into studying (not really what is being paid for), but at what point does sinking morale become a consideration?

[mvp99]

These RP questions were the most infuriating thing on the face of the planet. So tired of Barbri. I get their goal is to "scare people" into studying (not really what is being paid for), but at what point does sinking morale become a consideration?

Agreed. On the other hand, anyone found Ks questions too easy?

[goden]

Barbri's tricky or poorly written property questions?

Set3Question16 it says the investor joined the foreclosure proceeding. If you say it joined the foreclosure proceeding I'll assume they are foreclosing. It's obvious the investor is senior and thus not a necessary party or else the investor's interest would be wiped out. So why the hell would they join the proceeding if it isn't to foreclose?

yeah what the fuck? so how should we deal with it if something like this comes up? doesn't joining a foreclosure mean that they'll be foreclosing as well? FUCK

[anb012187]

Barbri's tricky or poorly written property questions?

Set3Question16 it says the investor joined the foreclosure proceeding. If you say it joined the foreclosure proceeding I'll assume they are foreclosing. It's obvious the investor is senior and thus not a necessary party or else the investor's interest would be wiped out. So why the hell would they join the proceeding if it isn't to foreclose?

yeah what the fuck? so how should we deal with it if something like this comes up? doesn't joining a foreclosure mean that they'll be foreclosing as well? FUCK

I just submitted that question to Barbri for clarification on the answer because it makes no damn sense.

[Chelo86]

Hello! I am using adaptibar. After 550 questions i have a 71% average. However. When using kaplan (same number of qs) i only get 57%.

Is this normal? I am lost dont know where i stand.

[imnottelling]

These RP questions were the most infuriating thing on the face of the planet. So tired of Barbri. I get their goal is to "scare people" into studying (not really what is being paid for), but at what point does sinking morale become a consideration?

Agreed. On the other hand, anyone found Ks questions too easy?

Yes.

[jj252525]

These RP questions were the most infuriating thing on the face of the planet. So tired of Barbri. I get their goal is to "scare people" into studying (not really what is being paid for), but at what point does sinking morale become a consideration?

Agreed. On the other hand, anyone found Ks questions too easy?

They're certainly a welcome change. Barbri tears us down one day to build us up the next. I can't handle this roller coaster of emotions.

[imnottelling]

They're certainly a welcome change. Barbri tears us down one day to build us up the next. I can't handle this roller coaster of emotions.

Whole-heartedly agree. I also think that is part of bar study anyways. One day I feel like I can totally take on the amount of work. The next day I feel totally unfocused, defeated, and exhausted.

I am also waking up in the middle of the night or first thing in the morning thinking/semi-dreaming about what I learned the previous few days. I know that means my mind is processing (this happened 1L year as well), but that shit is not fun.

[hogfan1991]

I wanted to pass along an opportunity to use a discount code to save $20 on the Critical Pass Flashcards as a supplement to study for the Bar Exam. These Flash Cards are for the MBE section of the Bar, so anyone can benefit from them (unless you are taking the Bar in Louisiana). These Flashcards disseminate all the MBE material into flashcards to help with memorization.

I've spoken with past bar passers and they swear by them and used them extensively the last few weeks of Bar Prep. I hope everyone's prep is going well and best of luck! If you do use the code, if you could please send me "quote" this message or somehow let me know.

The code can be used by and shared with any friends anywhere, it is not specific to Arkansans. Thanks!

Website: http://www.criticalpass.com/
Discount Code: 20ARKANSAS

[judgefudge]

What in God's name was Set 4 of property???
The average is apparently 10/18. I got 9/18.
I feel like BarBri is just constantly giving us questions that we've never gone over. Aside from the fact that it totally kills my ego, I just don't feel like that's an effective way to study because I learn things and then I never get to apply them because the next set is mostly random questions that we never studied again.
/end rant. Sorry, just really frustrated. Property is not my thing.

[jj252525]

What in God's name was Set 4 of property???
The average is apparently 10/18. I got 9/18.
I feel like BarBri is just constantly giving us questions that we've never gone over. Aside from the fact that it totally kills my ego, I just don't feel like that's an effective way to study because I learn things and then I never get to apply them because the next set is mostly random questions that we never studied again.
/end rant. Sorry, just really frustrated. Property is not my thing.

Agreed, it's beyond infuriating that a substantial number of questions test material not in the lecture. Please tell me if a "fixture filing" was somewhere in the lecture.

[illusion1024]

mvp99 wrote:
Barbri's tricky or poorly written property questions?

Set3Question16 it says the investor joined the foreclosure proceeding. If you say it joined the foreclosure proceeding I'll assume they are foreclosing. It's obvious the investor is senior and thus not a necessary party or else the investor's interest would be wiped out. So why the hell would they join the proceeding if it isn't to foreclose?

yeah what the fuck? so how should we deal with it if something like this comes up? doesn't joining a foreclosure mean that they'll be foreclosing as well? FUCK

The lending company joined the investor, "join" meaning that the lending company made the investor a party to the foreclosure action brought by the lending company because the investor has an interest in the property and the lending company wants to make sure that the court is adjudicating the investor's interest as well as its own. It is not the same thing as the investor also foreclosing on its interest.

This question was testing whether you could correctly apply the recording statute to the various lenders' interests. The fact that the lending company joined the investor to the action did not matter here, because the investor's interest was senior to the the lending company. However, if you misapplied the recording statute and thought that the investor's interest was junior to the lending company, you would confidently and incorrectly choose answer choice B because the investor was made a party to the action.

[mvp99]

mvp99 wrote:
Barbri's tricky or poorly written property questions?

Set3Question16 it says the investor joined the foreclosure proceeding. If you say it joined the foreclosure proceeding I'll assume they are foreclosing. It's obvious the investor is senior and thus not a necessary party or else the investor's interest would be wiped out. So why the hell would they join the proceeding if it isn't to foreclose?

yeah what the fuck? so how should we deal with it if something like this comes up? doesn't joining a foreclosure mean that they'll be foreclosing as well? FUCK

The lending company joined the investor, "join" meaning that the lending company made the investor a party to the foreclosure action brought by the lending company because the investor has an interest in the property and the lending company wants to make sure that the court is adjudicating the investor's interest as well as its own. It is not the same thing as the investor also foreclosing on its interest.

This question was testing whether you could correctly apply the recording statute to the various lenders' interests. The fact that the lending company joined the investor to the action did not matter here, because the investor's interest was senior to the the lending company. However, if you misapplied the recording statute and thought that the investor's interest was junior to the lending company, you would confidently and incorrectly choose answer choice B because the investor was made a party to the action.

we know what the question was asking. we just dont agree that having another party join a foreclosure proceeding just to say hi to the court is sufficient for us to not assume they are also foreclosing. not that its impossible for the senior to join for a declaratory judgment although that would be just dumb, whats the argument or the need, its clear they are senior? and if its that they join it to settle a dispute, just say it. MBE qs are no like this at all

[LionelHutzJD]

mvp99 wrote:
Barbri's tricky or poorly written property questions?

Set3Question16 it says the investor joined the foreclosure proceeding. If you say it joined the foreclosure proceeding I'll assume they are foreclosing. It's obvious the investor is senior and thus not a necessary party or else the investor's interest would be wiped out. So why the hell would they join the proceeding if it isn't to foreclose?

yeah what the fuck? so how should we deal with it if something like this comes up? doesn't joining a foreclosure mean that they'll be foreclosing as well? FUCK

The lending company joined the investor, "join" meaning that the lending company made the investor a party to the foreclosure action brought by the lending company because the investor has an interest in the property and the lending company wants to make sure that the court is adjudicating the investor's interest as well as its own. It is not the same thing as the investor also foreclosing on its interest.

This question was testing whether you could correctly apply the recording statute to the various lenders' interests. The fact that the lending company joined the investor to the action did not matter here, because the investor's interest was senior to the the lending company. However, if you misapplied the recording statute and thought that the investor's interest was junior to the lending company, you would confidently and incorrectly choose answer choice B because the investor was made a party to the action.

we know what the question was asking. we just dont agree that having another party join a foreclosure proceeding just to say hi to the court is sufficient for us to not assume they are also foreclosing. not that its impossible for the senior to join for a declaratory judgment although that would be just dumb, whats the argument or the need, its clear they are senior? and if its that they join it to settle a dispute, just say it. MBE qs are no like this at all

I think the purpose of some of these Barbri questions are to get us to go back and read the materials over and over. They've been doing this shit for over 30 years. They know what they're doing. We paid for the premium product. I was watching my friends Kaplan lecture and honestly it was a joke. We have Freer, Chemrinsky, Epstein, the chick who's father invented Penne alla Vodka. WE ARE GOING TO PASS.

[illusion1024]

mvp99 wrote:
Barbri's tricky or poorly written property questions?

Set3Question16 it says the investor joined the foreclosure proceeding. If you say it joined the foreclosure proceeding I'll assume they are foreclosing. It's obvious the investor is senior and thus not a necessary party or else the investor's interest would be wiped out. So why the hell would they join the proceeding if it isn't to foreclose?

yeah what the fuck? so how should we deal with it if something like this comes up? doesn't joining a foreclosure mean that they'll be foreclosing as well? FUCK

The lending company joined the investor, "join" meaning that the lending company made the investor a party to the foreclosure action brought by the lending company because the investor has an interest in the property and the lending company wants to make sure that the court is adjudicating the investor's interest as well as its own. It is not the same thing as the investor also foreclosing on its interest.

This question was testing whether you could correctly apply the recording statute to the various lenders' interests. The fact that the lending company joined the investor to the action did not matter here, because the investor's interest was senior to the the lending company. However, if you misapplied the recording statute and thought that the investor's interest was junior to the lending company, you would confidently and incorrectly choose answer choice B because the investor was made a party to the action.

we know what the question was asking. we just dont agree that having another party join a foreclosure proceeding just to say hi to the court is sufficient for us to not assume they are also foreclosing. not that its impossible for the senior to join for a declaratory judgment although that would be just dumb, whats the argument or the need, its clear they are senior? and if its that they join it to settle a dispute, just say it. MBE qs are no like this at all

The senior interest holder didn't join of their own volition to "say hi" to the court. The junior interest holder joined (i.e. named as a party) the senior interest holder in the junior interest holder's action. You're interpreting "join" to mean something more akin to "intervene." It's not the senior interest holder saying "me too!", it's the junior interest holder saying to the court "whatever my rights in the property are determined to be, I want them to be enforceable against these other parties, whom I have joined to my action." If the investor in this case were junior, it would matter, but because you correctly determined that the investor is senior, it doesn't - but there's nothing unclear about the term "join."

[rivermaker]

What did you guys think about Evidence practice set 3? I found this and the other evidence practice sets really fkn hard. I luck boxed a bunch on set 2 but I don't think my score on that is representative of my actual knowledge.

[ballouttacontrol]

Been following this thread but I'm a bit behind. I'm UBE but not NY. Do all UBE BarBri states follow the same schedule? My schedule for June 18 has ConLaw Diagnostic, MEE CivPro Essay #1, and MPQ CivPro Set 1. Same for you NY guys?

[rivermaker]

Im Arizona UBE and have the same schedule as you.

[LionelHutzJD]

Been following this thread but I'm a bit behind. I'm UBE but not NY. Do all UBE BarBri states follow the same schedule? My schedule for July 18 has ConLaw Diagnostic, MEE CivPro Essay #1, and MPQ CivPro Set 1. Same for you NY guys?

In NY we are finished with lectures on July 8

[ballouttacontrol]

Been following this thread but I'm a bit behind. I'm UBE but not NY. Do all UBE BarBri states follow the same schedule? My schedule for July 18 has ConLaw Diagnostic, MEE CivPro Essay #1, and MPQ CivPro Set 1. Same for you NY guys?

In NY we are finished with lectures on July 8

oops meant yesterday-june 18 lol

[judgefudge]

So, Contracts Set 1. The question where the manufacturer is preparing to ship to a wholesaler and then the wholesaler cancels. How does he have incidental damages if he went and sold the goods the very next day and still had to ship them? He began processing paperwork and preparing chairs for shipment, and then he had to ship the chairs anyway, so what incidental damages could he possibly have? The question isn't "what type of damages can he recover," but "how much should he recover?" I get that he is allowed to recover incidental damages in this case, but how can he have damages for something he had to do for the second shipment anyway?