Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread Forum

[mvp99]

What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?

Creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisor, despite not being a party. Donee beneficiary cannot.

I think you mean the creditor beneficiary can enforce against the promisee but a donee cannot. A donee beneficiary can enforce rights against the promisor if it's rights have vested.

Thanks. So if promisee says to promisor to pay the money to the creditor, but promisee fails under the K to perform a condition precedent to the promisor's duty to pay creditor, creditor can enforce the K against the promisee? And If the intended beneficiary was a donee, donee could not enforce the K against the promisee but once promisee performs, and promisor's duty is due, the donee may sue, correct?

[ellewoods123]

What's the significant difference in terms of enforcement between a creditor beneficiary and a donee beneficiary?

Creditor beneficiary can enforce the contract against the promisor, despite not being a party. Donee beneficiary cannot.

I think you mean the creditor beneficiary can enforce against the promisee but a donee cannot. A donee beneficiary can enforce rights against the promisor if it's rights have vested.

Thanks. So if promisee says to promisor to pay the money to the creditor, but promisee fails under the K to perform a condition precedent to the promisor's duty to pay creditor, creditor can enforce the K against the promisee? And If the intended beneficiary was a donee, donee could not enforce the K against the promisee but once promisee performs, and promisor's duty is due, the donee may sue, correct?

That's how I understand it, yes.

[0lol]

can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?

[mvp99]

can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?

Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

[0lol]

can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?

Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

ive spent hours on it and still dont get it at all

[ballouttacontrol]

can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?

Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

ive spent hours on it and still dont get it at all

Tbh, I'm somewhat with you. But, supplemental jurisdxn is already like really fucking complex and ambiguous. So I really don't think the bar is gonna test on it to any significant extent.

I, personally as in just my opinion here, think if u know what barbri says in its materials, that should be enough for the bar exam. Honestly I think an mbe Q would only test on the most basic application of it. SuppJxn was 50℅ of my 1L CivPro exam bc it's so jacked up and confusing and there's no way the bar exam can get that into the weeds on it

Just my humble opinion here

[LionelHutzJD]

can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?

Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

ive spent hours on it and still dont get it at all

Tbh, I'm somewhat with you. But, supplemental jurisdxn is already like really fucking complex and ambiguous. So I really don't think the bar is gonna test on it to any significant extent.

I, personally as in just my opinion here, think if u know what barbri says in its materials, that should be enough for the bar exam. Honestly I think an mbe Q would only test on the most basic application of it. SuppJxn was 50℅ of my 1L CivPro exam bc it's so jacked up and confusing and there's no way the bar exam can get that into the weeds on it

Just my humble opinion here

Supplemental Jurisdiction is a heavily tested area in Civil Procedure. I'm not trying to be a dick, just want to make sure you put adequate time into understanding it.

If you're having trouble I recommend going back to Freer's lecture if you're doing Barbri,or if you're not doing Barbri, try to get your hands on his lecture another way. He lays out the test for S-JXN and gives many examples.

[Rahviveh]

can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?

Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

ive spent hours on it and still dont get it at all

Tbh, I'm somewhat with you. But, supplemental jurisdxn is already like really fucking complex and ambiguous. So I really don't think the bar is gonna test on it to any significant extent.

I, personally as in just my opinion here, think if u know what barbri says in its materials, that should be enough for the bar exam. Honestly I think an mbe Q would only test on the most basic application of it. SuppJxn was 50℅ of my 1L CivPro exam bc it's so jacked up and confusing and there's no way the bar exam can get that into the weeds on it

Just my humble opinion here

Friend, you do not seem ready to enter our esteemed profession.

[0lol]

Friend, you do not seem ready to enter our esteemed profession.

fuck off

thats not appropriate itt

[wise4]

can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?

Piggy backing state claims (of the plaintiff or compulsory counterclaims) that arise out of the same transactions and occurances of the claim already in federal court.


The trick:

Its completely discretionary these state claims will not come in automatically (besides th compulsory cc).The judge may allow the state claims to come in by weighing four different factors.

Like the above poster said, I don't think supplemental is a big deal. Removal jurdx seems to pop up more on the practice questions. A lot of factors go into removal jurdx.

[ballouttacontrol]

can someone gimme a clear explanation of when supplement jurisidction applies?

Hey I think you should read a summary first try to work out the rules and come back because that question is way too broad. Not being mean or anything but I doubt you'll get a complete answer here.

ive spent hours on it and still dont get it at all

Tbh, I'm somewhat with you. But, supplemental jurisdxn is already like really fucking complex and ambiguous. So I really don't think the bar is gonna test on it to any significant extent.

I, personally as in just my opinion here, think if u know what barbri says in its materials, that should be enough for the bar exam. Honestly I think an mbe Q would only test on the most basic application of it. SuppJxn was 50℅ of my 1L CivPro exam bc it's so jacked up and confusing and there's no way the bar exam can get that into the weeds on it

Just my humble opinion here

Supplemental Jurisdiction is a heavily tested area in Civil Procedure. I'm not trying to be a dick, just want to make sure you put adequate time into understanding it.

If you're having trouble I recommend going back to Freer's lecture if you're doing Barbri,or if you're not doing Barbri, try to get your hands on his lecture another way. He lays out the test for S-JXN and gives many examples.

I'm not suggesting skipping it. I'm suggesting that what Freer/barbri materials gives us is enough for the bar exam. Freer does not cover all of suppjxn, for example, he does not even touch 1367c.

I haven't seen any complex issues of supp Jxn tested in my studying, which is probably why barbri glosses over it.

[Rahviveh]

Friend, you do not seem ready to enter our esteemed profession.

fuck off

thats not appropriate itt

He's trolling us smart guy.

[Near]

.

[Itwasluck]

Probably dumb question, but what is the difference between a discretionary trust and a spendthrift trust? Neither many be transferred by the beneficiary and neither provides creditors the ability to attach to the trust property. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

[LionelHutzJD]

Probably dumb question, but what is the difference between a discretionary trust and a spendthrift trust? Neither many be transferred by the beneficiary and neither provides creditors the ability to attach to the trust property. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Not a dumb question at all. They are quite similar.

A discretionary trust allows the trustee to make payments to the beneficiary in the trustees SOLE discretion. A trust instrument may not have discretionary language but spendthrift language. If the trust does not have discretionary language then it may be the case that the trustee MUST provide income to the beneficiary (there could be a support provision). Whenever the trustee provides income, that income is reachable by the creditors of the beneficiary.

I hope this helps. Also, you have the most important aspect down. Creditors cannot reach income that the beneficiary himself cannot reach.

[Itwasluck]

Probably dumb question, but what is the difference between a discretionary trust and a spendthrift trust? Neither many be transferred by the beneficiary and neither provides creditors the ability to attach to the trust property. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Not a dumb question at all. They are quite similar.

A discretionary trust allows the trustee to make payments to the beneficiary in the trustees SOLE discretion. A trust instrument may not have discretionary language but spendthrift language. If the trust does not have discretionary language then it may be the case that the trustee MUST provide income to the beneficiary (there could be a support provision). Whenever the trustee provides income, that income is reachable by the creditors of the beneficiary.

I hope this helps. Also, you have the most important aspect down. Creditors cannot reach income that the beneficiary himself cannot reach.

Awesome. Thanks a lot. This is exactly what I was looking for.

[Calvin Murphy]

My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.

[mvp99]

My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.

I knew this rule but now it got me thinking, does it apply to partnerships?

[Calvin Murphy]

My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.

I knew this rule but now it got me thinking, does it apply to partnerships?

Good question. I'm guessing that it depends who is named. If the partners are named individually, then no; however, if the partnership is named then yes.

Just a guess, though.

[BVest]

My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.

I knew this rule but now it got me thinking, does it apply to partnerships?

Good question. I'm guessing that it depends who is named. If the partners are named individually, then no; however, if the partnership is named then yes.

Just a guess, though.

No. A partnership is a citizen of each state in which a partner is located. Example Death Star, L.P. is made of partners Kenneth Lay of Missouri, Jeffrey Skilling of Pennsylvania, and Enron Corp. Enron is a Delaware Corp with its principle place of business in Texas. Death Star is a citizen of Missouri, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Texas.

[mvp99]

My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.

I knew this rule but now it got me thinking, does it apply to partnerships?

Good question. I'm guessing that it depends who is named. If the partners are named individually, then no; however, if the partnership is named then yes.

Just a guess, though.

for smj a partnership is a citizen of each state in which the partners (limited or general) are domiciled. But I'm wondering if for venue this changes also to anywhere where there is PJ with respect to the action.

[Calvin Murphy]

My study materials say that a corporate defendant is deemed to reside (for purposes of venue) in each district with which it has sufficient contacts to justify personal jurisdiction with respect to the action.

Is this entirely different from corporate citizenship (state of inc. + state of principal place of business)?

ETA: I think I understand it now. Clarifying the basic shit like this is helping me for memorizing rule statements in advance of the MEE stuff.

I knew this rule but now it got me thinking, does it apply to partnerships?

Good question. I'm guessing that it depends who is named. If the partners are named individually, then no; however, if the partnership is named then yes.

Just a guess, though.

for smj a partnership is a citizen of each state in which the partners (limited or general) are domiciled. But I'm wondering if for venue this changes also to anywhere where there is PJ with respect to the action.

That's what I'm talking about. Obviously the rule that BVest outlined is correct for purposes of determining citizenship for the inquiry of SMJ. As far as PJ goes, I'm guessing that a partnership can be hailed into court anywhere that it has engaged in regular, systematic, continuous business.

[ballouttacontrol]

Property Set 5, Question #10.

Landowner devises campground in her will "to my niece, her heirs, and assigns, so long as it used for camping and recreational purposes; if used for any other purpose during her lifetime, then to the Girl Scouts of America."

The second clause does not violate RAP because it's limited to Niece's lifetime. But WHY doesn't the determinable clause get stricken?? I thought it would become this because of the RAP violation:

"to my niece, her heirs, and assigns, so long as it used for camping and recreational purposes; if used for any other purpose during her lifetime, then to the Girl Scouts of America."

But the answer says that the neices will have a fee simple determinable. WTF WHY?????

[ellewoods123]

Probably dumb question, but what is the difference between a discretionary trust and a spendthrift trust? Neither many be transferred by the beneficiary and neither provides creditors the ability to attach to the trust property. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Not a dumb question at all. They are quite similar.

A discretionary trust allows the trustee to make payments to the beneficiary in the trustees SOLE discretion. A trust instrument may not have discretionary language but spendthrift language. If the trust does not have discretionary language then it may be the case that the trustee MUST provide income to the beneficiary (there could be a support provision). Whenever the trustee provides income, that income is reachable by the creditors of the beneficiary.

I hope this helps. Also, you have the most important aspect down. Creditors cannot reach income that the beneficiary himself cannot reach.

This was helpful! Am I misunderstanding, if a trust does NOT contain a spendthrift clause, then can a creditor ATTACH a beneficiary's interest, but not compel payment until the trustee actually exercises discretion to make payment to the beneficiary? is that correct?

[criminaltheory]

Property Set 5, Question #10.

Landowner devises campground in her will "to my niece, her heirs, and assigns, so long as it used for camping and recreational purposes; if used for any other purpose during her lifetime, then to the Girl Scouts of America."

The second clause does not violate RAP because it's limited to Niece's lifetime. But WHY doesn't the determinable clause get stricken?? I thought it would become this because of the RAP violation:

"to my niece, her heirs, and assigns, so long as it used for camping and recreational purposes; if used for any other purpose during her lifetime, then to the Girl Scouts of America."

But the answer says that the neices will have a fee simple determinable. WTF WHY?????

I think it's because the remainderman on the first clause is the grantor. The GSA's interest terminates on the expiration of "her lifetime," but the "so long as" remains. If the grantor wanted to terminate the condition completely, it would have been written more like "to my niece, her heirs, and assigns, but if used for any purpose other than camping and recreation during niece's lifetime, then to the Girl Scouts of America."