Texas Bar Exam July 2014 Forum

[Burgstaller04]

Up at 5 am. last day of this junk.

[jr8966]

Yeah me too I woke up at 3 am with a sudden urge to look at my material. I hope my memory can overcome yesterday's shell shock. Perhaps we'll catch a lucky break on the essays. Good luck everyone!

[aquasalad]

This afternoon is on pace to suck. Morning wasn't bad

[TX129392]

So, contracts issues? Am I losing my fuckin mind?

Congrats to all on being done.

[jr8966]

I feel like the TX BLE was like, oh so you thought you were going to have oil and gas, but no Article 2. How about we get rid of the oil and gas question? Ohh and yeah lets combine Article 2 and and Article 3.

[aquasalad]

That oil and gas question was bullshit. I can't believe I learned that whole topic only to have to guess at what turned out to be the right answer (for the first part).

[TX129392]

That oil and gas question was bullshit. I can't believe I learned that whole topic only to have to guess at what turned out to be the right answer (for the first part).

What was the right answer?

[aquasalad]

For the first part, I eventually ended up at both of those chicks needed to have signed the lease. I mean I hope that is right.

I considered oil and gas one of my strong suits going into the afternoon, and with that as the first question I was like are you fucking kidding me.

[Neve]

For the first part, I eventually ended up at both of those chicks needed to have signed the lease. I mean I hope that is right.

I considered oil and gas one of my strong suits going into the afternoon, and with that as the first question I was like are you fucking kidding me.

That question was recycled from a few years ago, but modified a bit for this exam. I reviewed it in my car during the lunch break (luckily). There wasn't a transfer to make the lease valid because an executive right is an interest in land so Statute of Frauds kicks in. Only the first chick had the power to sign the lease.

[txadv11]

For the first part, I eventually ended up at both of those chicks needed to have signed the lease. I mean I hope that is right.

I considered oil and gas one of my strong suits going into the afternoon, and with that as the first question I was like are you fucking kidding me.

That question was recycled from a few years ago, but modified a bit for this exam. I reviewed it in my car during the lunch break (luckily). There wasn't a transfer to make the lease valid because an executive right is an interest in land so Statute of Frauds kicks in. Only the first chick had the power to sign the lease.

Please tell me that other chick was NPRI?

Also if ^ what you said is correct, how in the hell can we answer question #2? What were DOC rights? or What -his faces- rights?

[txadv11]

Also did anyone else feel lost on trusts? I knew that I neglected that subject, but WOW.

IF I am OK it is b/c:
Family 2x (1 CP)
Agency 2x (btw wheres the corp???)
Wills 2x

so-so:
Secured
"warranties" (i think???)

but no good on:
prop, unless I was right on the disclosure crap
O&G (50-50)
Trusts ( dropped the ball BAD)
consumer

[aquasalad]

Yes. yes. yesssss!

I definitely dropped the "a conveyance of an interest in land must be in writing," then backed that up with the other chick needing to have signed the writing.

Wow, can't believe I pulled that shit out of my ass.

I was ready to dominate Pugh clauses and Duhig doctrine. Spare me Texas BLE.

[txadv11]

Yes. yes. yesssss!

I definitely dropped the "a conveyance of an interest in land must be in writing," then backed that up with the other chick needing to have signed the writing.

Wow, can't believe I pulled that shit out of my ass.

I was ready to dominate Pugh clauses and Duhig doctrine. Spare me Texas BLE.

I cited "pugh" LMFAO. In the context of a NPRI's rights (being limited to collecting and PUGH ratification)

[Neve]

For the first part, I eventually ended up at both of those chicks needed to have signed the lease. I mean I hope that is right.

I considered oil and gas one of my strong suits going into the afternoon, and with that as the first question I was like are you fucking kidding me.

Please tell me that other chick was NPRI?

Also if ^ what you said is correct, how in the hell can we answer question #2? What were DOC rights? or What -his faces- rights?

Part Two was waiver (relates back to Wally's waiver of use of the land for the Surface Lease) and the accommodation doctrine/pre-existing use. DOC had no rights to conduct drilling.

It was a weird question, but since I read the answer 30 minutes before in my car, I just typed out what I remembered from the model answer. :/ Hit the main points.

[txadv11]

For the first part, I eventually ended up at both of those chicks needed to have signed the lease. I mean I hope that is right.

I considered oil and gas one of my strong suits going into the afternoon, and with that as the first question I was like are you fucking kidding me.

That question was recycled from a few years ago, but modified a bit for this exam. I reviewed it in my car during the lunch break (luckily). There wasn't a transfer to make the lease valid because an executive right is an interest in land so Statute of Frauds kicks in. Only the first chick had the power to sign the lease.

Please tell me that other chick was NPRI?

Also if ^ what you said is correct, how in the hell can we answer question #2? What were DOC rights? or What -his faces- rights?

Part Two was waiver (relates back to Wally's waiver of use of the land for the Surface Lease) and the accommodation doctrine/pre-existing use. DOC had no rights to conduct drilling.

It was a weird question, but since I read the answer 30 minutes before in my car, I just typed out what I remembered from the model answer. :/ Hit the main points.

Credit me for general answer, DOC is screwed, citation to accommodation doctrine and thats it. Can I haz a 16-17?

[Neve]

I saw so many people in their cars reading the Texas Testing book today during the lunch break. Quickly had my sandwich and iced coffee drink and starting reading as many of those property, family, and UCC essays and answers as I could manage in an hour.

[aquasalad]

Are we positive that DOC had no rights to conduct drilling, even after the severance of the mineral estate and death of Wally? Because I advocated pretty hard for DOC being able to use their implied easement of the surface, and the dominant mineral estate being able to do whatever they want, and that there was no pre-existing use for the accommodation doctrine. I could easily be wrong.

In other news:
My summary:
Wills - holographic will, proving lost will = luckily knew all of that
Wills- intestate distribution wasn't too bad
trusts- spendthrift, came down to knowing difference between revocable/irrevocable and whether creditors can get income vs. principal for necessaries (missed the tax lien part)
LLC and a default GP - knew all of that but wasn't positive on which GP agreement provisions were ok (said the liability provision was unenforceable and the choice of law provision was unenforceable)
no corporations, glad I spent a shit ton of time learning that.
the real property foreclosure sale- knew the basics, not sure if right- sale wasn't done correctly (notice was incorrect and location of sale wrong), no idea about the second part
secured question was easy IMO, answers were BIOCOB, lienholder in business inventory vs. Bank, bank in inventory vs. messed up PMSI in inventory, I think that order is correct.
Family law community property was easy.
Family law prenup- knew the law but I think I argued the wrong side.
Article 2 I knew, not so much with the commercial paper part 3.


I showed up and am glad it's over with. Hopefully MBE did not own me.

[txadv11]

I saw so many people in their cars reading the Texas Testing book today during the lunch break. Quickly had my sandwich and iced coffee drink and starting reading as many of those property, family, and UCC essays and answers as I could manage in an hour.

Ya same. Except I figured: 1 prop, 1 og, 2 family, 1 secured, 1 comm ppr

In hindsight shoulda been the above except, .66 warranties .33 comm ppr

[Neve]

I've taken family law and Texas mat prop. Interned in family court. That question on the premarital agreement could have gone either way in my opinion (said it was probably unenforceable, but it was a tough call). The family law questions tend to be more "flexible" than other questions, like the property and UCC, which will always have one right answer.

[Neve]

I actually didn't think this exam was as well written as some other exams. A retirement account, but what kind of retirement account? Defined benefit or defined contribution plan? But maybe I'm just tired.

[txadv11]

Are we positive that DOC had no rights to conduct drilling, even after the severance of the mineral estate and death of Wally? Because I advocated pretty hard for DOC being able to use their implied easement of the surface, and the dominant mineral estate being able to do whatever they want, and that there was no pre-existing use for the accommodation doctrine. I could easily be wrong.

In other news:
My summary:
Wills - holographic will, proving lost will = luckily knew all of thatcheck
Wills- intestate distribution wasn't too badcheck
trusts- spendthrift, came down to knowing difference between revocable/irrevocable and whether creditors can get income vs. principali had no clue, argued off of common sense that IRS and child support were the easiest to get, used "spendthrift about 20 times
LLC and a default GP - knew all of that but wasn't positive on which GP agreement provisions were ok (said the liability provision was unenforceable and the choice of law provision was unenforceable)check
no corporations, glad I spent a shit ton of time learning that.I no rite!
the real property foreclosure sale- knew the basics, not sure if right- sale wasn't done correctly (notice was incorrect and location of sale wrong), no idea about the second part I agured the same, plus some extra on that 40% 48 month stuff 30 days/60 days
secured question was easy IMO, answers were BIOCOB, lienholder in business inventory vs. Bank, bank in inventory vs. messed up PMSI in inventory, I think that order is correct. check, minus #2, I said the comp was equipt, lien and other secured were for inventory. Cited to proceeds not sure about that....
Family law community property was easy.check minus I forgot the difference between pension and retirement (only 1 of 4 or 5
Family law prenup- knew the law but I think I argued the wrong side. Not sure, I thought INVALID on both, but argued both sides on the maintenance, but detailed answer.
Article 2 I knew, not so much with the commercial paper part 3. I used art 2 on most, but discussed a express warranty on the "samples" when I may not have needed to.... I also through in bankruptcy as a fallback even though not a primary issue (avoidance/liability/stay)


I showed up and am glad it's over with. Hopefully MBE did not own me.

[Neve]

said the comp was equipt, lien and other secured were for inventory.

Ditto on this. Equipment versus inventory distinction was key, but I could be wrong....

[txadv11]

said the comp was equipt, lien and other secured were for inventory.

Ditto on this. Equipment versus inventory distinction was key, but I could be wrong....

What through me was "which of the two has superior rights"

Answer " neither".... lol

[aquasalad]

I defined business inventory as equipment in my answer... Lol

[Neve]

What through me was "which of the two has superior rights"

Answer " neither".... lol

Seriously.

Is business inventory "equipment" or "inventory"?