California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[EZ as AsDf]

Not sure if it is possible for me to pass this PTB thing... I did write a statement of facts, including the terms of the contract (the arbitrator clause), the dates of the Final Decision, the Awards in the Final Decision, the Amended Final Decision Awards, and the letters that were sent.

I'm not sure what would be a correct heading? I wrote The Amended Final Agreement was not a correction and was therefore not subject to the time limitations in section 1284... or something similar. I thought the headings were supposed to be an application of specific facts and not just a broad restatement of the law.

Then I pasted some rules from the courts directly underneath, and followed it with a shitty analysis. A bare bones analysis. maybe not even any analysis for some headings.

I ran out of time. But did I follow directions enough to help my score?

[Furball]

@ez: your heading is def better than mine. Despite clear instructions, I wrote really broad, general statement that had nothing to do with what my argument was going to be about. It's awful. I really want to know if it's remotely possible to pull off a 60 using wrong headings.

[Apple Tree]

For all of you worrying about PTB, no fear. I'm gonna make the curve really nice for you. I'm pretty sure I'll get a 50 on it. I didn't talk about the subissues in one of the issues AT ALL, and I'm pretty sure I completely messed up the rules in the two big issues.

[071816]

well fuck me in the ass and call me sally struthers

[lmr]

For all of you worrying about PTB, no fear. I'm gonna make the curve really nice for you. I'm pretty sure I'll get a 50 on it. I didn't talk about the subissues in one of the issues AT ALL, and I'm pretty sure I completely messed up the rules in the two big issues.

What were those three sub issues? I just remember alleging attorney's fees being one of them listed as being an abuse of power or something. Total blur-

[Furball]

jesus did we need to have separate headings for sub-issues? If so, yeah, I'm definitely screwed bc I had only 4 headings total. FML.

[071816]

jesus did we need to have separate headings for sub-issues? If so, yeah, I'm definitely screwed bc I had only 4 headings total. FML.

same here. fuck it.

[lithoman]

I didn't organize PTB by just listing the petition's four points and going through them. I thought this would lead to a lot of redundancy (e.g., "this is not an enumerated reason to vacate") and I also didn't think the petition's organization was that great to begin with based on the library's law. But now I'm thinking I might have got a little too creative for the examiners.

[adonai]

For the first call of the trusts question where the co-trustee is suing the other co-trustee, was that supposed to hit on duties of trustees (duty of loyalty, investment, etc.)? I can't for my life find any section in my outlines or in CMR what a co-trustee can sue another co-trustee for.

[Furball]

That f'en trust question screwed me over. Messed up on it big time. Yeah I discussed the duties for call #1 and ran out of time for the last two call of the questions so barely wrote anything and didn't even finish. Getting a 50 or 55 on that for sure.

[adonai]

That f'en trust question screwed me over. Messed up on it big time. Yeah I discussed the duties for call #1 and ran out of time for the last two call of the questions so barely wrote anything and didn't even finish. Getting a 50 or 55 on that for sure.

Same. I purposely spent more time on the other two which I felt were better for me. Had only half an hour on trusts.

Barbri CMR says only a settlor or beneficiary can sue for breach of the duties depending on the type of trust, so that's why I'm freaking out again.

[Carryon]

Not sure if it is possible for me to pass this PTB thing... I did write a statement of facts, including the terms of the contract (the arbitrator clause), the dates of the Final Decision, the Awards in the Final Decision, the Amended Final Decision Awards, and the letters that were sent.

I'm not sure what would be a correct heading? I wrote The Amended Final Agreement was not a correction and was therefore not subject to the time limitations in section 1284... or something similar. I thought the headings were supposed to be an application of specific facts and not just a broad restatement of the law.

Then I pasted some rules from the courts directly underneath, and followed it with a shitty analysis. A bare bones analysis. maybe not even any analysis for some headings.

I ran out of time. But did I follow directions enough to help my score?

That's sort of what I did too. I did the statement of facts at the end. I made sure in the beginning to have a nice cover page heading just like the petitioners. I also had a signature section for the attorney submitting my brief. I thought that since this was the last question, I might as well go out in style.

[lithoman]

For the first call of the trusts question where the co-trustee is suing the other co-trustee, was that supposed to hit on duties of trustees (duty of loyalty, investment, etc.)? I can't for my life find any section in my outlines or in CMR what a co-trustee can sue another co-trustee for.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Page 3

[adonai]

For the first call of the trusts question where the co-trustee is suing the other co-trustee, was that supposed to hit on duties of trustees (duty of loyalty, investment, etc.)? I can't for my life find any section in my outlines or in CMR what a co-trustee can sue another co-trustee for.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Page 3

Thank you for this. I came across this earlier, felt it didn't apply, but just gave it another read. My reading comp skills are way off today for some reason.

So yes, co-trustees can sue each other to enforce trustee duties. Barbri doesn't say that in their full or CMR outline. Only thing they mention about co-trustees is vicarious liability for each other's actions.

[scrowell]

For the first call of the trusts question where the co-trustee is suing the other co-trustee, was that supposed to hit on duties of trustees (duty of loyalty, investment, etc.)? I can't for my life find any section in my outlines or in CMR what a co-trustee can sue another co-trustee for.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Page 3

Hells ya. Still dunno about the 2nd part of that question though

[adonai]

I'm getting PTSD-esque episodes where suddenly random stuff I missed or wasn't sure of pops into my head when I'm not even thinking about the bar and relaxing. Then I get freaked out and research the crap out of it. I even woke up today in a cold sweat thinking I didn't upload my answers when in fact I did last night and checked that I uploaded them multiple times that night. I even checked again this morning just to be sure. Please tell me this isn't gonna happen for the next 4 months.

[scrowell]

I'm getting PTSD-esque episodes where suddenly random stuff I missed or wasn't sure of pops into my head when I'm not even thinking about the bar and relaxing. Then I get freaked out and research the crap out of it. I even woke up today in a cold sweat thinking I didn't upload my answers when in fact I did last night and checked that I uploaded them multiple times that night. I even checked again this morning just to be sure. Please tell me this isn't gonna happen for the next 4 months.

Dood, it sounds like you may have issues beyond just taking the bar. It's just a test. U can retake if u fail. chill. Just think abt it. Way worse thingns could happen. Like u or Ur loved ones could have health problems and/or die

[AMCD]

And, did I mention that in February in my reread they changed SIX out of EIGHT of my written scores. What does that say about the fluid standards, or lack thereof.

[lmr]

And, did I mention that in February in my reread they changed SIX out of EIGHT of my written scores. What does that say about the fluid standards, or lack thereof.

What was your MBE score-you sound like you had a high essay average based on your earlier post-i think you said you had two 75s or something w a 60? What was the difference bw the two reads? 5 or 10 points?

[a male human]

And, did I mention that in February in my reread they changed SIX out of EIGHT of my written scores. What does that say about the fluid standards, or lack thereof.

The weird thing is that they give you the average score instead of the second score. What about the people who got graded by the more generous grader first and got the full score to pass?

[mistermister]

For the first call of the trusts question where the co-trustee is suing the other co-trustee, was that supposed to hit on duties of trustees (duty of loyalty, investment, etc.)? I can't for my life find any section in my outlines or in CMR what a co-trustee can sue another co-trustee for.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Page 3

Hells ya. Still dunno about the 2nd part of that question though

Yeah after thinking about the entire exam, I think the second call in the Trusts essay was the most difficult part of all six essays. Looked back through outlines and still have no clue what a trustee can do when a charitable beneficiary uses funds for expenses other than the charitable purpose. My best guess now is that we were suppose to conclude it was an invalid trust to begin with and the resulting trust returned the res. Oh well! Curious if anybody else has come up with better answers for that question.

[scrowell]

For the first call of the trusts question where the co-trustee is suing the other co-trustee, was that supposed to hit on duties of trustees (duty of loyalty, investment, etc.)? I can't for my life find any section in my outlines or in CMR what a co-trustee can sue another co-trustee for.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Page 3

Hells ya. Still dunno about the 2nd part of that question though

Yeah after thinking about the entire exam, I think the second call in the Trusts essay was the most difficult part of all six essays. Looked back through outlines and still have no clue what a trustee can do when a charitable beneficiary uses funds for expenses other than the charitable purpose. My best guess now is that we were suppose to conclude it was an invalid trust to begin with and the resulting trust returned the res. Oh well! Curious if anybody else has come up with better answers for that question.

Yeah dude no clue. I just wrote about cy pres cause it was the only charitable trust issue I could think of lol. I just said that the charitable purpose failed so the court could reassign to another charity.

[Mr. Pink]

Re: timeliness, think I referred to one case that talked about how timeliness isn't an issue if an arbitrator is just correcting something. Not sure if that's right but the case mentioned it so I just used it. Who knows. My only pain right now is f'ing up on the headings. Used wrong headings by not following the directions. Anyone have an idea how much that can cost you?

I used two approaches to this part- 1) the 1284 (or whatever Columbia Statute it was) said that the timeframe was only for correction in miscalculations or clerical errors and therefore did not apply to the instant case; and 2) that if the arbitrator inadvertently omitted issues that were submitted then the final award could not be final because he has to make a definite decision on each issue- therefore if it wasn't final the time bar would not start running.

I thought that was the trickiest of the 4 issues to be honest, and I was worried until I saw the "1284 doesn't apply to these type of issues" reference in the last case

[mistermister]

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf

Page 3[/quote]

Hells ya. Still dunno about the 2nd part of that question though[/quote]

Yeah after thinking about the entire exam, I think the second call in the Trusts essay was the most difficult part of all six essays. Looked back through outlines and still have no clue what a trustee can do when a charitable beneficiary uses funds for expenses other than the charitable purpose. My best guess now is that we were suppose to conclude it was an invalid trust to begin with and the resulting trust returned the res. Oh well! Curious if anybody else has come up with better answers for that question.[/quote]

Yeah dude no clue. I just wrote about cy pres cause it was the only charitable trust issue I could think of lol. I just said that the charitable purpose failed so the court could reassign to another charity.[/quote]

Yeah I discussed cy pres and then said the charity could win the suit anyway by showing the administrative expenses were necesarry to maintain operations and continue disaster relief work LAWLZ. Hashtag Hail Mary...

[scrowell]

Re: timeliness, think I referred to one case that talked about how timeliness isn't an issue if an arbitrator is just correcting something. Not sure if that's right but the case mentioned it so I just used it. Who knows. My only pain right now is f'ing up on the headings. Used wrong headings by not following the directions. Anyone have an idea how much that can cost you?

I used two approaches to this part- 1) the 1284 (or whatever Columbia Statute it was) said that the timeframe was only for correction in miscalculations or clerical errors and therefore did not apply to the instant case; and 2) that if the arbitrator inadvertently omitted issues that were submitted then the final award could not be final because he has to make a definite decision on each issue- therefore if it wasn't final the time bar would not start running.

I thought that was the trickiest of the 4 issues to be honest, and I was worried until I saw the "1284 doesn't apply to these type of issues" reference in the last case

Hah me too! The case saved me a lot of work. I figured out that it didn't apply to (b) before reading that and i was like damn i'm gonna have to write all this out?

I can't believe you remember the section numbers btw.