California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[MBAtoJD]

Quick question:

Anyone else include Joint and Several Liability for Torts question (Owner & Caterer)?

Also, instead of saying "Uniform Principal & Income Act" I said "Uniform Prudent Income Act" for the Trust question!!! I bet that would give the grader a chuckle!

[adonai]

Quick question:

Anyone else include Joint and Several Liability for Torts question (Owner & Caterer)?

Also, instead of saying "Uniform Principal & Income Act" I said "Uniform Prudent Income Act" for the Trust question!!! I bet that would give the grader a chuckle!

I did for caterer and waiter.

For upia, I just said upia because I forgot what it stood for.

[injun]

I think the more time passes, the more I feel like I really messed up on both PTs. Based on research (i.e., Bar Essays), does anyone know how badly you have to mess up to get a 55? I'm just hoping for 60s at this point.

[Carryon]

I think the more time passes, the more I feel like I really messed up on both PTs. Based on research (i.e., Bar Essays), does anyone know how badly you have to mess up to get a 55? I'm just hoping for 60s at this point.

I did bad on the pts (50, 55) in the February exam. Then again, I handwrote the exam, so they were not very neat looking. As you know, any changes (crossing out, using arrows etc.) when handwriting looks messy. I don't know about these Pts. I think that it seems that I got most of the main points, but it seems that I should have written more. I wish that I had more time. Looking at Bar Essays grades and grader comments, it seems to be always the case that if you miss an issue, that it will cost you. If you get all of the issues regardless of your style, you generally get at least 65. But who knows, it seems the grading is a little vague.

[glitter178]

I think the more time passes, the more I feel like I really messed up on both PTs. Based on research (i.e., Bar Essays), does anyone know how badly you have to mess up to get a 55? I'm just hoping for 60s at this point.

I know I butchered both PTs. First one I really struggled with the first issue and was just completely incoherent. The second one I know I did well (what I finished). Would have needed 5 more minutes to complete it. Basically, I finished everything (including conclusion) and then realized I only discussed 1 of the three subissues in part III. I started discussing the 2nd of 3 when they called time. Sooooooo basically I hope I killed the MBE section....

[kerryconverse]

I think the more time passes, the more I feel like I really messed up on both PTs. Based on research (i.e., Bar Essays), does anyone know how badly you have to mess up to get a 55? I'm just hoping for 60s at this point.

I know I butchered both PTs. First one I really struggled with the first issue and was just completely incoherent. The second one I know I did well (what I finished). Would have needed 5 more minutes to complete it. Basically, I finished everything (including conclusion) and then realized I only discussed 1 of the three subissues in part III. I started discussing the 2nd of 3 when they called time. Sooooooo basically I hope I killed the MBE section....

Do you remember specifically what the 3 subparts were under part III for PT B? I'm hoping I at least mentioned them all but I for sure didn't have 3 subparts even though we were supposed to.

I remember part 1 was in funcus officio, i believe part 2 was the timeliness of the appeal, i believe part 3 was a discussion regarding how there was no authority under the statutes to modify or something, and part 4 was punitive damages.

[injun]

I don't remember specifically each subpart, but they were each lettered a, b, and c. I only made a heading and wrote 1 sentence about Punitive damages, so hopefully I can get some credit.

Does anyone remember the general structure for the PTA? I thought there was just one issue in the first charge (something about whether the RV was a physical structure). I can't remember what the organization was for the second charge. I think I divided it up into 2 subparts, with the first part dealing with whether there was a material change in the nonconforming use (I used the traffic report for my factual analysis) and the second part dealing with vested rights and substantial change factors provided by that 1 case. Was I even close? Thanks in advance for any info!

[glitter178]

I think the more time passes, the more I feel like I really messed up on both PTs. Based on research (i.e., Bar Essays), does anyone know how badly you have to mess up to get a 55? I'm just hoping for 60s at this point.

I know I butchered both PTs. First one I really struggled with the first issue and was just completely incoherent. The second one I know I did well (what I finished). Would have needed 5 more minutes to complete it. Basically, I finished everything (including conclusion) and then realized I only discussed 1 of the three subissues in part III. I started discussing the 2nd of 3 when they called time. Sooooooo basically I hope I killed the MBE section....

Do you remember specifically what the 3 subparts were under part III for PT B? I'm hoping I at least mentioned them all but I for sure didn't have 3 subparts even though we were supposed to.

I remember part 1 was in funcus officio, i believe part 2 was the timeliness of the appeal, i believe part 3 was a discussion regarding how there was no authority under the statutes to modify or something, and part 4 was punitive damages.

I can only remember 2; atty fees and the damages calculation/ miscalculation

[kerryconverse]

I don't remember specifically each subpart, but they were each lettered a, b, and c. I only made a heading and wrote 1 sentence about Punitive damages, so hopefully I can get some credit.

Does anyone remember the general structure for the PTA? I thought there was just one issue in the first charge (something about whether the RV was a physical structure). I can't remember what the organization was for the second charge. I think I divided it up into 2 subparts, with the first part dealing with whether there was a material change in the nonconforming use (I used the traffic report for my factual analysis) and the second part dealing with vested rights and substantial change factors provided by that 1 case. Was I even close? Thanks in advance for any info!

Ya the structure in PT A was

Part I - whether it was a structure
Part II - whether it was a material increase in an existing nonconforming use, and, whether it was a new nonconforming use that was not a material decrease or something in environmental impact.

I split the two parts of part II into separate parts. So i had 3 parts total. And there was a 3 factor test, which I discussed primarily in the second half of part II but was probably also applicable in the first half of part II

[kerryconverse]

I think the more time passes, the more I feel like I really messed up on both PTs. Based on research (i.e., Bar Essays), does anyone know how badly you have to mess up to get a 55? I'm just hoping for 60s at this point.

I know I butchered both PTs. First one I really struggled with the first issue and was just completely incoherent. The second one I know I did well (what I finished). Would have needed 5 more minutes to complete it. Basically, I finished everything (including conclusion) and then realized I only discussed 1 of the three subissues in part III. I started discussing the 2nd of 3 when they called time. Sooooooo basically I hope I killed the MBE section....

Do you remember specifically what the 3 subparts were under part III for PT B? I'm hoping I at least mentioned them all but I for sure didn't have 3 subparts even though we were supposed to.

I remember part 1 was in funcus officio, i believe part 2 was the timeliness of the appeal, i believe part 3 was a discussion regarding how there was no authority under the statutes to modify or something, and part 4 was punitive damages.

I can only remember 2; atty fees and the damages calculation/ miscalculation

Shit i talked about atty fees but didn't even mention the damages recalcluation. Anyone know the third subpart?

[david33mba]

I think the more time passes, the more I feel like I really messed up on both PTs. Based on research (i.e., Bar Essays), does anyone know how badly you have to mess up to get a 55? I'm just hoping for 60s at this point.

I know I butchered both PTs. First one I really struggled with the first issue and was just completely incoherent. The second one I know I did well (what I finished). Would have needed 5 more minutes to complete it. Basically, I finished everything (including conclusion) and then realized I only discussed 1 of the three subissues in part III. I started discussing the 2nd of 3 when they called time. Sooooooo basically I hope I killed the MBE section....

Do you remember specifically what the 3 subparts were under part III for PT B? I'm hoping I at least mentioned them all but I for sure didn't have 3 subparts even though we were supposed to.

I remember part 1 was in funcus officio, i believe part 2 was the timeliness of the appeal, i believe part 3 was a discussion regarding how there was no authority under the statutes to modify or something, and part 4 was punitive damages.

The issues for part 3 were -- whether the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his power to amend the original award (to include omitted issue), recharacterize the nature of the award, and award attorney's fees.

[kerryconverse]

I think the more time passes, the more I feel like I really messed up on both PTs. Based on research (i.e., Bar Essays), does anyone know how badly you have to mess up to get a 55? I'm just hoping for 60s at this point.

I know I butchered both PTs. First one I really struggled with the first issue and was just completely incoherent. The second one I know I did well (what I finished). Would have needed 5 more minutes to complete it. Basically, I finished everything (including conclusion) and then realized I only discussed 1 of the three subissues in part III. I started discussing the 2nd of 3 when they called time. Sooooooo basically I hope I killed the MBE section....

Do you remember specifically what the 3 subparts were under part III for PT B? I'm hoping I at least mentioned them all but I for sure didn't have 3 subparts even though we were supposed to.

I remember part 1 was in funcus officio, i believe part 2 was the timeliness of the appeal, i believe part 3 was a discussion regarding how there was no authority under the statutes to modify or something, and part 4 was punitive damages.

The issues for part 3 were -- whether the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his power to amend the original award (to include omitted issue), recharacterize the nature of the award, and award attorney's fees.

Thanks for the help. Looks like I inadvertently hit 2 of the 3. Maybe i'm still in the running for a 60 or 65 lol.

[injun]

Ya the structure in PT A was

Part I - whether it was a structure
Part II - whether it was a material increase in an existing nonconforming use, and, whether it was a new nonconforming use that was not a material decrease or something in environmental impact.

I split the two parts of part II into separate parts. So i had 3 parts total. And there was a 3 factor test, which I discussed primarily in the second half of part II but was probably also applicable in the first half of part II

Thanks, Kerry. I vaguely remember the 3 parts of Part II, so please correct me if I am wrong: I think I first said that the opponent conceded that the client had a nonconforming use based on the conditional permit. Then, secondly, i discussed how despite the 3 sections cited by the opponent regarding material increase, there was another statute that provided guidelines as to what constitutes "material". I used that traffic report for this part to determine "materiality". Then for the third part, I used the 3 factor test to determine whether there was a "change" in the non-conforming use. I think the 3 factor test was used to determine whether the change was "substantial". Does this sound right? Thanks again!

[Carryon]

Ya the structure in PT A was

Part I - whether it was a structure
Part II - whether it was a material increase in an existing nonconforming use, and, whether it was a new nonconforming use that was not a material decrease or something in environmental impact.

I split the two parts of part II into separate parts. So i had 3 parts total. And there was a 3 factor test, which I discussed primarily in the second half of part II but was probably also applicable in the first half of part II

Thanks, Kerry. I vaguely remember the 3 parts of Part II, so please correct me if I am wrong: I think I first said that the opponent conceded that the client had a nonconforming use based on the conditional permit. Then, secondly, i discussed how despite the 3 sections cited by the opponent regarding material increase, there was another statute that provided guidelines as to what constitutes "material". I used that traffic report for this part to determine "materiality". Then for the third part, I used the 3 factor test to determine whether there was a "change" in the non-conforming use. I think the 3 factor test was used to determine whether the change was "substantial". Does this sound right? Thanks again!

I also used evidence from the letter on improving the air quality with the RPTs to say that the use will not be "bad" (forgot the term) to the surrounding neighborhood.

[EZ as AsDf]

I think the more time passes, the more I feel like I really messed up on both PTs. Based on research (i.e., Bar Essays), does anyone know how badly you have to mess up to get a 55? I'm just hoping for 60s at this point.

Postbartum Depression. I'm sad that I know this, but you can fuck up really badly to the point where you can't even explain what you wrote to anyone, and still get a 55.

[david33mba]

Ya the structure in PT A was

Part I - whether it was a structure
Part II - whether it was a material increase in an existing nonconforming use, and, whether it was a new nonconforming use that was not a material decrease or something in environmental impact.

I split the two parts of part II into separate parts. So i had 3 parts total. And there was a 3 factor test, which I discussed primarily in the second half of part II but was probably also applicable in the first half of part II

Thanks, Kerry. I vaguely remember the 3 parts of Part II, so please correct me if I am wrong: I think I first said that the opponent conceded that the client had a nonconforming use based on the conditional permit. Then, secondly, i discussed how despite the 3 sections cited by the opponent regarding material increase, there was another statute that provided guidelines as to what constitutes "material". I used that traffic report for this part to determine "materiality". Then for the third part, I used the 3 factor test to determine whether there was a "change" in the non-conforming use. I think the 3 factor test was used to determine whether the change was "substantial". Does this sound right? Thanks again!

To me, Part II had multiple parts. First, you had to use the court decision (last one) to determine whether something falls into the same nonconforming use or not (I forgot if it was 2 or 3 part test). Then, you had to use the statute to walk through the different parts. Essentially, if it's the same nonconforming use, the level of intensity can't increase significantly; if it's a new nonconforming use, then the level of intensity must be significantly lower. The statute also gives the four factors that should be used to determine the level of intensity -- effect to traffic, effect to surrounding neighborhood, level/frequency of use, and something about nature of the use. The effects to traffic and surrounding neighborhood were easy (the traffic and air reports). Level/frequency of use went the other way since the RPT's vacancy level is much lower than the RV spots' vacancy level, suggesting more guests. Nature of use was probably up for argument by each side.

[kerryconverse]

Ya the structure in PT A was

Part I - whether it was a structure
Part II - whether it was a material increase in an existing nonconforming use, and, whether it was a new nonconforming use that was not a material decrease or something in environmental impact.

I split the two parts of part II into separate parts. So i had 3 parts total. And there was a 3 factor test, which I discussed primarily in the second half of part II but was probably also applicable in the first half of part II

Thanks, Kerry. I vaguely remember the 3 parts of Part II, so please correct me if I am wrong: I think I first said that the opponent conceded that the client had a nonconforming use based on the conditional permit. Then, secondly, i discussed how despite the 3 sections cited by the opponent regarding material increase, there was another statute that provided guidelines as to what constitutes "material". I used that traffic report for this part to determine "materiality". Then for the third part, I used the 3 factor test to determine whether there was a "change" in the non-conforming use. I think the 3 factor test was used to determine whether the change was "substantial". Does this sound right? Thanks again!

I also used evidence from the letter on improving the air quality with the RPTs to say that the use will not be "bad" (forgot the term) to the surrounding neighborhood.

Ya that's pretty much what I did, you might have gone even into further detail. You're looking pretty good.

And I did use the letters from the city as well, those were pretty persuasive.

[kerryconverse]

Ya the structure in PT A was

Part I - whether it was a structure
Part II - whether it was a material increase in an existing nonconforming use, and, whether it was a new nonconforming use that was not a material decrease or something in environmental impact.

I split the two parts of part II into separate parts. So i had 3 parts total. And there was a 3 factor test, which I discussed primarily in the second half of part II but was probably also applicable in the first half of part II

Thanks, Kerry. I vaguely remember the 3 parts of Part II, so please correct me if I am wrong: I think I first said that the opponent conceded that the client had a nonconforming use based on the conditional permit. Then, secondly, i discussed how despite the 3 sections cited by the opponent regarding material increase, there was another statute that provided guidelines as to what constitutes "material". I used that traffic report for this part to determine "materiality". Then for the third part, I used the 3 factor test to determine whether there was a "change" in the non-conforming use. I think the 3 factor test was used to determine whether the change was "substantial". Does this sound right? Thanks again!

To me, Part II had multiple parts. First, you had to use the court decision (last one) to determine whether something falls into the same nonconforming use or not (I forgot if it was 2 or 3 part test). Then, you had to use the statute to walk through the different parts. Essentially, if it's the same nonconforming use, the level of intensity can't increase significantly; if it's a new nonconforming use, then the level of intensity must be significantly lower. The statute also gives the four factors that should be used to determine the level of intensity -- effect to traffic, effect to surrounding neighborhood, level/frequency of use, and something about nature of the use. The effects to traffic and surrounding neighborhood were easy (the traffic and air reports). Level/frequency of use went the other way since the RPT's vacancy level is much lower than the RV spots' vacancy level, suggesting more guests. Nature of use was probably up for argument by each side.

I agree with everything you said -- pretty sure I included all of it as well.

[injun]

To me, Part II had multiple parts. First, you had to use the court decision (last one) to determine whether something falls into the same nonconforming use or not (I forgot if it was 2 or 3 part test). Then, you had to use the statute to walk through the different parts. Essentially, if it's the same nonconforming use, the level of intensity can't increase significantly; if it's a new nonconforming use, then the level of intensity must be significantly lower. The statute also gives the four factors that should be used to determine the level of intensity -- effect to traffic, effect to surrounding neighborhood, level/frequency of use, and something about nature of the use. The effects to traffic and surrounding neighborhood were easy (the traffic and air reports). Level/frequency of use went the other way since the RPT's vacancy level is much lower than the RV spots' vacancy level, suggesting more guests. Nature of use was probably up for argument by each side.

Thanks, David. I think I primarily relied on the traffic study and the newspaper article to address effect to traffic, effect to surrounding neighborhood, level/frequency of use, and nature of the use. Hopefully that was sufficient

[Carryon]

Ya the structure in PT A was

Part I - whether it was a structure
Part II - whether it was a material increase in an existing nonconforming use, and, whether it was a new nonconforming use that was not a material decrease or something in environmental impact.

I split the two parts of part II into separate parts. So i had 3 parts total. And there was a 3 factor test, which I discussed primarily in the second half of part II but was probably also applicable in the first half of part II

Thanks, Kerry. I vaguely remember the 3 parts of Part II, so please correct me if I am wrong: I think I first said that the opponent conceded that the client had a nonconforming use based on the conditional permit. Then, secondly, i discussed how despite the 3 sections cited by the opponent regarding material increase, there was another statute that provided guidelines as to what constitutes "material". I used that traffic report for this part to determine "materiality". Then for the third part, I used the 3 factor test to determine whether there was a "change" in the non-conforming use. I think the 3 factor test was used to determine whether the change was "substantial". Does this sound right? Thanks again!

I also used evidence from the letter on improving the air quality with the RPTs to say that the use will not be "bad" (forgot the term) to the surrounding neighborhood.

Ya that's pretty much what I did, you might have gone even into further detail. You're looking pretty good.

And I did use the letters from the city as well, those were pretty persuasive.

Who knows it seems like I should have written a little more on whether RPTs are structures or RVs. Maybe should have acknowledge a little bit more that the Oregon case says that they are structures (even though I concluded that they were RVs via the other documents), since this was an objective rather than persuasive memo. Who knows, should have, could have, would have done this or done that .........

[injun]

Who knows it seems like I should have written a little more on whether RPTs are structures or RVs. Maybe should have acknowledge a little bit more that the Oregon case says that they are structures (even though I concluded that they were RVs via the other documents), since this was an objective rather than persuasive memo. Who knows, should have, could have, would have done this or done that .........

Sounds like you were on the right track...i think organization of the issues and some form of factual discussion is all that is required to do okay on these things

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

Ya the structure in PT A was

Part I - whether it was a structure
Part II - whether it was a material increase in an existing nonconforming use, and, whether it was a new nonconforming use that was not a material decrease or something in environmental impact.

I split the two parts of part II into separate parts. So i had 3 parts total. And there was a 3 factor test, which I discussed primarily in the second half of part II but was probably also applicable in the first half of part II

Thanks, Kerry. I vaguely remember the 3 parts of Part II, so please correct me if I am wrong: I think I first said that the opponent conceded that the client had a nonconforming use based on the conditional permit. Then, secondly, i discussed how despite the 3 sections cited by the opponent regarding material increase, there was another statute that provided guidelines as to what constitutes "material". I used that traffic report for this part to determine "materiality". Then for the third part, I used the 3 factor test to determine whether there was a "change" in the non-conforming use. I think the 3 factor test was used to determine whether the change was "substantial". Does this sound right? Thanks again!

To me, Part II had multiple parts. First, you had to use the court decision (last one) to determine whether something falls into the same nonconforming use or not (I forgot if it was 2 or 3 part test). Then, you had to use the statute to walk through the different parts. Essentially, if it's the same nonconforming use, the level of intensity can't increase significantly; if it's a new nonconforming use, then the level of intensity must be significantly lower. The statute also gives the four factors that should be used to determine the level of intensity -- effect to traffic, effect to surrounding neighborhood, level/frequency of use, and something about nature of the use. The effects to traffic and surrounding neighborhood were easy (the traffic and air reports). Level/frequency of use went the other way since the RPT's vacancy level is much lower than the RV spots' vacancy level, suggesting more guests. Nature of use was probably up for argument by each side.

It was a 3 part test. And the reason I remember this is because I forgot to put the dang test into my memo until there was only 5 minutes left on the clock! I made a HUGE mistake of taking everyone's advice and reading the library before the file. By the time I finished the file, I forgot about the main "test" I wanted to use (which I highlighted and put a BIG star next to). I looked at my clock, panicked and just started writing. Made lots of good points, and covered most of the main issues, but that 3 part test is just hanging by itself at the end - thankfully I was able to at least type it quickly with the last few minutes remaining, but all of the facts are floating above it. UGH. So for the 2nd PT, I read the file FIRST and then the library, and for me, it made ALL the difference in the world. Felt really good about the second PT. I wonder how many points I'll lose Such a bummer. If I fail because if this stupid mistake, I'm going to cry . A lot. I had very strong scores on practice MBE exams and was counting on doing really well on them, but... they were REALLY DIFFICULT.

[lmr]

Ya the structure in PT A was

Part I - whether it was a structure
Part II - whether it was a material increase in an existing nonconforming use, and, whether it was a new nonconforming use that was not a material decrease or something in environmental impact.

I split the two parts of part II into separate parts. So i had 3 parts total. And there was a 3 factor test, which I discussed primarily in the second half of part II but was probably also applicable in the first half of part II

Thanks, Kerry. I vaguely remember the 3 parts of Part II, so please correct me if I am wrong: I think I first said that the opponent conceded that the client had a nonconforming use based on the conditional permit. Then, secondly, i discussed how despite the 3 sections cited by the opponent regarding material increase, there was another statute that provided guidelines as to what constitutes "material". I used that traffic report for this part to determine "materiality". Then for the third part, I used the 3 factor test to determine whether there was a "change" in the non-conforming use. I think the 3 factor test was used to determine whether the change was "substantial". Does this sound right? Thanks again!

To me, Part II had multiple parts. First, you had to use the court decision (last one) to determine whether something falls into the same nonconforming use or not (I forgot if it was 2 or 3 part test). Then, you had to use the statute to walk through the different parts. Essentially, if it's the same nonconforming use, the level of intensity can't increase significantly; if it's a new nonconforming use, then the level of intensity must be significantly lower. The statute also gives the four factors that should be used to determine the level of intensity -- effect to traffic, effect to surrounding neighborhood, level/frequency of use, and something about nature of the use. The effects to traffic and surrounding neighborhood were easy (the traffic and air reports). Level/frequency of use went the other way since the RPT's vacancy level is much lower than the RV spots' vacancy level, suggesting more guests. Nature of use was probably up for argument by each side.

It was a 3 part test. And the reason I remember this is because I forgot to put the dang test into my memo until there was only 5 minutes left on the clock! I made a HUGE mistake of taking everyone's advice and reading the library before the file. By the time I finished the file, I forgot about the main "test" I wanted to use (which I highlighted and put a BIG star next to). I looked at my clock, panicked and just started writing. Made lots of good points, and covered most of the main issues, but that 3 part test is just hanging by itself at the end - thankfully I was able to at least type it quickly with the last few minutes remaining, but all of the facts are floating above it. UGH. So for the 2nd PT, I read the file FIRST and then the library, and for me, it made ALL the difference in the world. Felt really good about the second PT. I wonder how many points I'll lose Such a bummer. If I fail because if this stupid mistake, I'm going to cry . A lot. I had very strong scores on practice MBE exams and was counting on doing really well on them, but... they were REALLY DIFFICULT.

Three part test? This seemed like so long ago. What was that part? I barely remember now but i'm freaking out bc this sounds like something i should remember. I remember the case decision listing the four factors or whatever and the County's rep paper kind of outlining that part in his paper….bad idea to keep on rehashing this thing. Really bad for my sanity.

[lmr]

I had very strong scores on practice MBE exams and was counting on doing really well on them, but... they were REALLY DIFFICULT.

I also did really well on practice MBE percentile wise and am just hoping that if it was hard for me it was hard for everyone else. Hopefully our scores will reflect that-it is curved.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

You probably remember everything better than I do LMR... I'm sure you mentioned the thing I'm talking about. I should have probably called it factors rather than a test. It jumped right out when reading the case... I just forgot about it because I was so busy writing about other stuff