Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

Is anyone sitting down and writing out practice performance exams for the full 3 hours? I did one today and I'm wondering if it was a good use of time. I spent WAY more than 3 hours on it because I just couldn't sit still - got up and did a million things to procrastinate because it was so boring - and now I feel like I wasted my day. Wondering if I should just read a bunch of them instead, or continue to write them out? They're worth 2 essays EACH so I can't just ignore them forever... but boy, the process is painful. UGH

[canon]

I'm probably going to split remaining PTs into two 1.5 hr sessions over the course of two days, probably evening/next morning.

For a lighter day on the schedule -- if one exists -- I'll probably try to do one or two PTs in the afternoon (like exam day).

This is getting rough. I feel pretty miserable and overwhelmed because I can't quite memorize things even after I spend tons of time on just one subject, but I have faith it'll come together ...

[Gopackgo2010]

Wills question for the CA folks -

The Themis materials all give the following rule for one of the exceptions when an omitted child does not get the omitted child's share: "The testator had other children at the time the will was executed and left substantially all of his estate to the other parent of the omitted child."

On a practice essay where the later-born omitted child was an only child, and the mother received substantially all of the estate, the model answer said that the omitted child would still be entitled to an omitted child's share under the statute, because the decedent did not have "other children" at the time the will was executed (only the one child born a year later). Seems consistent with the rule above.

The model answers on the CA bar site both say the child does NOT get a share as an omitted child, because the other parent of the omitted child got substantially all of the estate. I know sometimes the published answers get things wrong, but this seems like a key piece since it affects the entire distribution, so I don't get why they would pick two answers that came to the wrong result.

The probate code phrases the exception as "The decedent had one or more children and devised or otherwise directed the disposition of substantially all the estate to the other parent of the omitted child."

The ambiguity here seems to be whether the "one or more children" have to be alive at the time the will was executed, or whether the later-born omitted child counts for purposes of this exception. I think the code means that at least one child has to be alive at the time the will was made, because otherwise you can't draw as strong an inference that leaving the entire estate to the other parent was intended as a way to provide for the children as well.

Can anyone shed light on this for me?

Hey, I took CA Wills in the fall and I really liked it (I know I'm a freak lol). So the rationale for the exception you're talking about piggy backs off the rationale for the one of the exceptions to being an omitted spouse, the one where the omitted spouse has entered into a valid agreement waiving the right to share in the decedent's estate. The problem is that the decedent cannot enter into the same type of waiver agreement with the omitted child that he can with the omitted spouse (I'm not sure if it's because the omitted child in these situations are almost always minors and can't enter into contracts or the those type of waivers can only be entered into with spouses--I'm 99% sure it is the first one, but honestly it doesn't matter), so the legal fiction is that the decedent leaves it to the other parent of the omitted child and that parent uses it to take care of the child until the age of majority, where the other parent would give the rest of the devise, if any is left, to the omitted child. So the whole idea is that the other parent steps in for the omitted child in that exception, that's all. So, if there was a requirement that the other parent also had to have at least one more child for the omitted child to take would make no sense. So No, for the exception to apply the decedent just has to give it to the other parent who (in imaginary law land, where no parent is susceptible to greed) will in turn use it for the benefit of the omitted child. Plus, ignoring rationales for rules, the text says "one or more" and it would be hard to argue going against the text.

[Lasers]

Is anyone sitting down and writing out practice performance exams for the full 3 hours? I did one today and I'm wondering if it was a good use of time. I spent WAY more than 3 hours on it because I just couldn't sit still - got up and did a million things to procrastinate because it was so boring - and now I feel like I wasted my day. Wondering if I should just read a bunch of them instead, or continue to write them out? They're worth 2 essays EACH so I can't just ignore them forever... but boy, the process is painful. UGH

i don't do them; i feel it would be a waste of time.

the most i'm going to do is read the materials and then outline my answer, which should take about an hour. actually writing it out is a total waste since the law is right there and really the only thing that you need to practice is organizing your response.

[Gopackgo2010]

For anyone who wants a little 4th amendment refresher or a break without guilt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAHEsZ0 ... e=youtu.be

[Gopackgo2010]

For anyone who wants a little 4th amendment refresher or a break without guilt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAHEsZ0 ... e=youtu.be

The first one is more serious and has some very cursory law explanations in it, the second one is just a guy Bro'ing out

[Lilly76]

I just bombed a mixed MBE set. I don't know if it's because I didn't know the law or because I'm getting burned out and my brain is tired.

[j1987]

What is the point of the state-specific multiple choice questions? Will we be seeing this on the exam, or are we doing them just to practice our knowledge (which I have none of according to the amount I've gotten right so far)?

I'm in NY by the way.

[Tanicius]

What is the point of the state-specific multiple choice questions? Will we be seeing this on the exam, or are we doing them just to practice our knowledge (which I have none of according to the amount I've gotten right so far)?

I'm in NY by the way.

It's to get better at your state-specific essay topics. I really wish I had MEE multiple choice questions so I could hone my understanding of more abstract essay subjects like Secured Transactions. Then I could know if I'm at least in the ballpark before I start looking at actual essay questions.

[j1987]

What is the point of the state-specific multiple choice questions? Will we be seeing this on the exam, or are we doing them just to practice our knowledge (which I have none of according to the amount I've gotten right so far)?

I'm in NY by the way.

It's to get better at your state-specific essay topics. I really wish I had MEE multiple choice questions so I could hone my understanding of more abstract essay subjects like Secured Transactions. Then I could know if I'm at least in the ballpark before I start looking at actual essay questions.

Okay, that makes sense. I started getting better at answering after I made my post. I just wasn't sure if there would be state-specific multiple choice questions on the NY part. I didn't remember hearing anything about that, but it's entirely possible I missed it in my being bored/tired/sick/over this whole studying this. I've had a migraine for 3 days also.

[094320]

..

[hous]

Do the essay graders intentionally knock us down on our grades? Florida requires a 45 average on the essays but my grader has not given that as an average on any essay yet. I only got above it once and a bit concerned.

Also, is anyone else a little concerned that you need a 65% on the MBE to pass? I'm slightly above that with Themis' problems but not by a lot.

I'm hoping the real deal has easier questions, otherwise I don't see how so many people pass.

[Tanicius]

What is the point of the state-specific multiple choice questions? Will we be seeing this on the exam, or are we doing them just to practice our knowledge (which I have none of according to the amount I've gotten right so far)?

I'm in NY by the way.

There's a NY MC section.

Holy shit.

[hous]

Thank god Florida has a MC section. Really wish the essay could be at the END of the exam, not at the freaking start.

[numbertwo88]

Do the essay graders intentionally knock us down on our grades? Florida requires a 45 average on the essays but my grader has not given that as an average on any essay yet. I only got above it once and a bit concerned.

Also, is anyone else a little concerned that you need a 65% on the MBE to pass? I'm slightly above that with Themis' problems but not by a lot.

I'm hoping the real deal has easier questions, otherwise I don't see how so many people pass.

I'm convinced they're grading harshly based on what I've written in contrast to the sample answers.

& I'm very concerned about the MBE. Very. Concerned.

[jigglypuffdreams]

Okay, just finished the first practice set of 100 MBE questions, and Themis jacked up the goal to "100%." Needless to say, I did not get 100%. I'm hoping that thing about only needing to get 65% right in a half MBE jurisdiction is true because these Themis goals are absurd.

[puttycake]

Okay, just finished the first practice set of 100 MBE questions, and Themis jacked up the goal to "100%." Needless to say, I did not get 100%. I'm hoping that thing about only needing to get 65% right in a half MBE jurisdiction is true because these Themis goals are absurd.

Huh. The highest goal I've seen is 70%, and I'm through question set 12. Maybe you encountered a glitch?

[jigglypuffdreams]

Yeah, I'm guessing it's a glitch, all my other MBE question sets say the goal is 70%.

[kapital98]

What is the point of the state-specific multiple choice questions? Will we be seeing this on the exam, or are we doing them just to practice our knowledge (which I have none of according to the amount I've gotten right so far)?

I'm in NY by the way.

There's a NY MC section.

Holy shit.

It's 10% of the test and, from what I've heard, they are super hard questions.

[kapital98]

Also, is anyone else a little concerned that you need a 65% on the MBE to pass? I'm slightly above that with Themis' problems but not by a lot.

This is really scary to me. 50% is practically an auto-fail. 60% is a toss-up. 65%+ should equal a pass. This is assuming something crazy doesn't happen on the essays.

Right now I'm getting in the mid-50's and am freaked out. I'm going to take the free trial for Adaptibar this week and see if I'm still interested.

[DorothyV]

Does anyone know what the MBE goal is for a state that is 1/3 MBE?

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

Also, is anyone else a little concerned that you need a 65% on the MBE to pass? I'm slightly above that with Themis' problems but not by a lot.

This is really scary to me. 50% is practically an auto-fail. 60% is a toss-up. 65%+ should equal a pass. This is assuming something crazy doesn't happen on the essays.

Right now I'm getting in the mid-50's and am freaked out. I'm going to take the free trial for Adaptibar this week and see if I'm still interested.

I don't know why but I always do much better on Adaptibar MBE's than I do on the Themis MBE questions. Maybe the ones Themis writes are harder than the actual exam questions?? I know most are actually questions from previous bar exams, but Themis does write some of them... that's all I can think of to explain the discrepancy.

[Tanicius]

This answer is objectively wrong. This would almost certainly qualify as an excited utterance:

16. (Question ID#4674)
A plaintiff has sued a defendant, alleging that she was run over by a speeding car driven by the defendant. The plaintiff was unconscious after her injury and, accompanied by her husband, was brought to the hospital in an ambulance.
At trial, the plaintiff calls an emergency room physician to testify that when the physician asked the plaintiff's husband if he knew what had happened, the husband, who was upset, replied, "I saw my wife get run over two hours ago by a driver who went right through the intersection without looking."
Is the physician's testimony about the husband's statement admissible?
A. No, because it relates an opinion.
B. No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
C. Yes, as a statement made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment.
D. Yes, as an excited utterance.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. The statement is offered to prove liability for the accident. As such, it is not a statement made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment. Moreover, the statement was made two hours after the accident, so it is very unlikely that the husband (who was not himself an accident victim) was under a continuous state of excitement between the time of the accident and the time he made the statement. Therefore, the statement is not admissible as an excited utterance, and no other hearsay exception applies. Answer choice A is incorrect. An out-of-court statement is not inadmissible simply because it contains an opinion. Statements of opinion by out-of-court declarants may be admitted if they qualify under a hearsay exception and otherwise satisfy the rules governing opinion testimony of in-court witnesses. This statement, however, is hearsay not within any exception and is inadmissible. Answer choice C is incorrect. The husband's statement is making an accusation of fault for the accident. Such a statement is not pertinent to the diagnosis or treatment of the plaintiff, as is required by the hearsay exception. No other hearsay exception applies, so the statement is inadmissible. As discussed with respect to answer choice B, because the husband made the statement two hours after the accident, it is very unlikely that the husband (who was not himself an accident victim) was under a continuous state of excitement between the time of the accident and the time he made the statement.

Two hours is nothing. It's actually highly likely that the husband would still be under the stress of excitement of having watched his wife get hit by a car. The hypothetical even specifically says that he was upset at the time.

[dreakol]

This answer is objectively wrong. This would almost certainly qualify as an excited utterance:

16. (Question ID#4674)
A plaintiff has sued a defendant, alleging that she was run over by a speeding car driven by the defendant. The plaintiff was unconscious after her injury and, accompanied by her husband, was brought to the hospital in an ambulance.
At trial, the plaintiff calls an emergency room physician to testify that when the physician asked the plaintiff's husband if he knew what had happened, the husband, who was upset, replied, "I saw my wife get run over two hours ago by a driver who went right through the intersection without looking."
Is the physician's testimony about the husband's statement admissible?
A. No, because it relates an opinion.
B. No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
C. Yes, as a statement made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment.
D. Yes, as an excited utterance.
Incorrect: Answer choice B is correct. The statement is offered to prove liability for the accident. As such, it is not a statement made for purposes of diagnosis or treatment. Moreover, the statement was made two hours after the accident, so it is very unlikely that the husband (who was not himself an accident victim) was under a continuous state of excitement between the time of the accident and the time he made the statement. Therefore, the statement is not admissible as an excited utterance, and no other hearsay exception applies. Answer choice A is incorrect. An out-of-court statement is not inadmissible simply because it contains an opinion. Statements of opinion by out-of-court declarants may be admitted if they qualify under a hearsay exception and otherwise satisfy the rules governing opinion testimony of in-court witnesses. This statement, however, is hearsay not within any exception and is inadmissible. Answer choice C is incorrect. The husband's statement is making an accusation of fault for the accident. Such a statement is not pertinent to the diagnosis or treatment of the plaintiff, as is required by the hearsay exception. No other hearsay exception applies, so the statement is inadmissible. As discussed with respect to answer choice B, because the husband made the statement two hours after the accident, it is very unlikely that the husband (who was not himself an accident victim) was under a continuous state of excitement between the time of the accident and the time he made the statement.

Two hours is nothing. It's actually highly likely that the husband would still be under the stress of excitement of having watched his wife get hit by a car. The hypothetical even specifically says that he was upset at the time.

I picked B without first reading the rest of your post/explanation. But it does shed light on a major problem with multiple choice questions that arent 100 percent objective.

[Tanicius]

I picked B without first reading the rest of your post/explanation. But it does shed light on a major problem with multiple choice questions that arent 100 percent objective.

I mean, we even covered actual cases in evidence class where witnesses were excited hours after events transpired. Normally this would be a situation where the 2-hour window is put into the fact pattern out of a deliberate attempt to trick people into thinking the excited utterance couldn't apply when in fact it does. Since there's no NCBE notation, I'm chalking this one up to Themis.