Texas Bar Exam July 2014 Forum

[txadv11]

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

Answer " neither".... lol

Seriously.

Is business inventory "equipment" or "inventory"?

It is whatever BLE wants it to be. And whatever keeps me from February (I'm praying).

[Neve]

I used the 'plain meaning' rule on myself and said "business inventory" is inventory. It's neither.

[txadv11]

DO NOT FORGET TO UPLOAD!!!! 10 PM. Mine took 30 secs.

[Prime]

Secured:

I'm not gonna lie, I argued both sides of that damn computer question.

1. I called it an identifiable proceed. If that failed,
2. Then I stated it was equipment.

haha

[Prime]

Family/Community Property law!

I wanted to talk about 'lowest intermediary balance' and 'community out first' doctrines. They didn't even touch those subject! I mentioned both and stated I needed more facts to make a determination. lulz

[txadv11]

Family/Community Property law!

I wanted to talk about 'lowest intermediary balance' and 'community out first' doctrines. They didn't even touch those subject! I mentioned both and stated I needed more facts to make a determination. lulz

Same, Mentioned in re: bank acct but said given facts prob not necessary

[Haymarket]

Secured:

I'm not gonna lie, I argued both sides of that damn computer question.

1. I called it an identifiable proceed. If that failed,
2. Then I stated it was equipment.

haha

It was both. You're only temporarily perfected in identifiable noncash proceeds for 20 days, unless you have a financing statement covering it already. The computer was equipment, but the bank didn't have a financing statement covering equipment, and the 20 days lapsed, so it wasn't perfected. But the judgment lien wasn't perfected either, again, because it was equipment.

[Prime]

Secured:

I'm not gonna lie, I argued both sides of that damn computer question.

1. I called it an identifiable proceed. If that failed,
2. Then I stated it was equipment.

haha

It was both. You're only temporarily perfected in identifiable noncash proceeds for 20 days, unless you have a financing statement covering it already. The computer was equipment, but the bank didn't have a financing statement covering equipment, and the 20 days lapsed, so it wasn't perfected. But the judgment lien wasn't perfected either, again, because it was equipment.

Yea, I almost forgot the '20 day' window. Glad I actually went back and reviewed my essay. heh

[TX129392]

Secured:

I'm not gonna lie, I argued both sides of that damn computer question.

1. I called it an identifiable proceed. If that failed,
2. Then I stated it was equipment.

haha

It was both. You're only temporarily perfected in identifiable noncash proceeds for 20 days, unless you have a financing statement covering it already. The computer was equipment, but the bank didn't have a financing statement covering equipment, and the 20 days lapsed, so it wasn't perfected. But the judgment lien wasn't perfected either, again, because it was equipment.

Yea, I almost forgot the '20 day' window. Glad I actually went back and reviewed my essay. heh

I forgot the number of days and said 90 days. Oops.

[DMXdawg]

Yea, that problem basically comes down to unperfected, attached proceeds prior in time vs. a judicial lien. remember: proceeds can be perfected if it's identifiable cash proceeds, or if the FS lists the type of good that the collateral is (equipment), or if it is perfected within 20 days. Because it isn't perfected within 20 days, it becomes an unsecured interest for the bank that is still prior to the judicial lien, and the bank takes.

For the helmets the PMSI becomes unattached because it's beyond 20 days. In addition, those who seek to perfect inventory needs to give prior notice to other perfected interests, and Bank was not notified (at all). Perfected, prior in time; Bank wins.

[TX129392]

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)

Largely same stuff here except I totally blanked on the rules for premarital agreements.

Also for secured transactions wasn't that a consignment, not a messed-up PMSI? I thought it was PMSI at first but changed my mind. Could be wrong here though.

For the second question on the foreclosure one, I thought maybe that was a reference to the statutory form that a seller can fill out to avoid liability (section 5.008 of the property code IIRC, but I don't want to go look it up for sure right now). That was the only thing I could think of.

For the intestate distribution one, did anybody else get some weird fractions for how the assets were distributed? I have a feeling I may have messed the math up.

I said the choice of law provision in the failed LLC question was unenforceable based on the internal affairs doctrine, but I was mostly just pulling that out of my ass. Along with my answers on all of the provisions in that agreement, actually.

Finally, for the O&G one, I didn't even touch implied easements or the accommodation doctrine because I said the lease was invalid based on (1) no conveyance of the executive interest and (2) the waiver covenant in the lease. I think not mentioning those might have been a mistake though.

[DMXdawg]

And a couple of comments on previous comments:

For the issue with the spousal maintenance, I believe the Texas law has a max of 20% of the spousal's income to a maximum of $5,000, so the judge's ruling is permissible.

wrt to the UCC 2 questions, there were two warranties to discuss; implied warranty of merchantability (i.e., the bad and cracked eggs are not good for its original purpose) + express warranty (as discussed before in this thread, the "model" eggs with the labeling). The discussion would need to focus on the insufficiency of the "as if" disclaimer.

For the other UCC part, you need to discuss the possibility of two remedies--either rejection which the seller can argue against because it was not rejected by delivery because of the lack of inspection (but you should still discuss that inspection may be been precluded by the nailed crates). Rejection has the perfect tender rule. Keep in mind that before the delivery date, seller has an absolute right to cure, and after the delivery date, seller has right to cure in a reasonable time if he in good faith believes his goods were conforming. The other remedy is repudiation, and the standard of proof for that is much higher--substantial nonconformity.

If you hit those points you are in excellent shape!

[DMXdawg]

I thought the trust q went like this, and correct me if I'm wrong.

For irrevocable Trust I, the first three can break through to the principal: the tax lien, the hospital bill ( as necessaries), and child support (as Texas allows alimony and child support to be satisfied out of spendthrift principal). The other two claims cannot and they'd have to wait until distribution.

For the default revocable Trust II, where the settlor is also one of the beneficiary, the protection fails and all five creditors can claim from the entirety of the money given to Trust II. Texas law does not allow self-settled trusts as a way to avoid creditors.

[TX129392]

I thought the trust q went like this, and correct me if I'm wrong.

For irrevocable Trust I, the first three can break through to the principal: the tax lien, the hospital bill ( as necessaries), and child support (as Texas allows alimony and child support to be satisfied out of spendthrift principal). The other two claims cannot and they'd have to wait until distribution.

For the default revocable Trust II, where the settlor is also one of the beneficiary, the protection fails and all five creditors can claim from the entirety of the money given to Trust II. Texas law does not allow self-settled trusts as a way to avoid creditors.

I'm think that's incorrect re Trust II. I'm pretty sure it's a "self-settled asset protection trust" (and hence invalid under TX law) only if the settlor is also the trustee. Rather, Trust II fell into an exception for spendthrift protection for interests retained by the settlor (which includes revocable trusts). So it was reachable by the judgment creditor of the settlor (forget her name), but not by the mom's creditor.

I don't really want to look it up to be sure though.

[BCPRO]

Secured:

I'm not gonna lie, I argued both sides of that damn computer question.

1. I called it an identifiable proceed. If that failed,
2. Then I stated it was equipment.

haha

It was both. You're only temporarily perfected in identifiable noncash proceeds for 20 days, unless you have a financing statement covering it already. The computer was equipment, but the bank didn't have a financing statement covering equipment, and the 20 days lapsed, so it wasn't perfected. But the judgment lien wasn't perfected either, again, because it was equipment.

Can someone explain the Same office rule? As I understand it, perfection in proceeds continues if a financing statement to perfect the new item of clateral would be filed in the same office as the financing statement used to perfect the original item of collateral. Is that applicable here?

[TX129392]

And a couple of comments on previous comments:

For the issue with the spousal maintenance, I believe the Texas law has a max of 20% of the spousal's income to a maximum of $5,000, so the judge's ruling is permissible.

wrt to the UCC 2 questions, there were two warranties to discuss; implied warranty of merchantability (i.e., the bad and cracked eggs are not good for its original purpose) + express warranty (as discussed before in this thread, the "model" eggs with the labeling). The discussion would need to focus on the insufficiency of the "as if" disclaimer.

For the other UCC part, you need to discuss the possibility of two remedies--either rejection which the seller can argue against because it was not rejected by delivery because of the lack of inspection (but you should still discuss that inspection may be been precluded by the nailed crates). Rejection has the perfect tender rule. Keep in mind that before the delivery date, seller has an absolute right to cure, and after the delivery date, seller has right to cure in a reasonable time if he in good faith believes his goods were conforming. The other remedy is repudiation, and the standard of proof for that is much higher--substantial nonconformity.

If you hit those points you are in excellent shape!

Fuck. I didn't hit shit as far as those remedies go. I got the warranty stuff though.

[DMXdawg]

I thought the trust q went like this, and correct me if I'm wrong.

For irrevocable Trust I, the first three can break through to the principal: the tax lien, the hospital bill ( as necessaries), and child support (as Texas allows alimony and child support to be satisfied out of spendthrift principal). The other two claims cannot and they'd have to wait until distribution.

For the default revocable Trust II, where the settlor is also one of the beneficiary, the protection fails and all five creditors can claim from the entirety of the money given to Trust II. Texas law does not allow self-settled trusts as a way to avoid creditors.

I'm think that's incorrect re Trust II. I'm pretty sure it's a "self-settled asset protection trust" (and hence invalid under TX law) only if the settlor is also the trustee. Rather, Trust II fell into an exception for spendthrift protection for interests retained by the settlor (which includes revocable trusts). So it was reachable by the judgment creditor of the settlor (forget her name), but not by the mom's creditor.

I don't really want to look it up to be sure though.

I can't find the answer in clear terms, but I think you might be right. Trust II is probably invalid as to settlor's own interests, but it would probably protect against the non-settlor beneficiary. All I could find is Tex. Prop. Code § 112.035.

[nfggcaar]

.

[TX129392]

I thought the trust q went like this, and correct me if I'm wrong.

For irrevocable Trust I, the first three can break through to the principal: the tax lien, the hospital bill ( as necessaries), and child support (as Texas allows alimony and child support to be satisfied out of spendthrift principal). The other two claims cannot and they'd have to wait until distribution.

For the default revocable Trust II, where the settlor is also one of the beneficiary, the protection fails and all five creditors can claim from the entirety of the money given to Trust II. Texas law does not allow self-settled trusts as a way to avoid creditors.

I'm think that's incorrect re Trust II. I'm pretty sure it's a "self-settled asset protection trust" (and hence invalid under TX law) only if the settlor is also the trustee. Rather, Trust II fell into an exception for spendthrift protection for interests retained by the settlor (which includes revocable trusts). So it was reachable by the judgment creditor of the settlor (forget her name), but not by the mom's creditor.

I don't really want to look it up to be sure though.

I can't find the answer in clear terms, but I think you might be right. Trust II is probably invalid as to settlor's own interests, but it would probably protect against the non-settlor beneficiary. All I could find is Tex. Prop. Code § 112.035.

I'm like 90% sure about that. Fuck it though, the exam's over. Here's hoping we all passed.

[txadv11]

Well... here's to bad dreams. But waking up and NOT having to go to the convention center right now..... it's like Christmas or something.

[DMXdawg]

I'm going to be very unhappy if I have to go through this again

[arkhamhorror]

Completely blew the trusts question. Like, not even close and answer was very brief. That's what I get for not studying it I guess.

Everything else I hit on the points, even if I got some of the law wrong here and there. UCC/Corps/Family Law went well. I argued that the guy was intentionally underemployed in the spousal maintenance question.

This is going to be close. I **think** I hit the average of 16 that Barbri recommends you get. It's all going to depend how generous the graders are. Like, is it possible to get a 0/25? The trusts essay could certainly qualify for that, but I wonder if they'd throw me eight or nine sympathy points.

[TX129392]

Completely blew the trusts question. Like, not even close and answer was very brief. That's what I get for not studying it I guess.

Everything else I hit on the points, even if I got some of the law wrong here and there. UCC/Corps/Family Law went well. I argued that the guy was intentionally underemployed in the spousal maintenance question.

This is going to be close. I **think** I hit the average of 16 that Barbri recommends you get. It's all going to depend how generous the graders are. Like, is it possible to get a 0/25? The trusts essay could certainly qualify for that, but I wonder if they'd throw me eight or nine sympathy points.

The farther away from the exam I get, the worse I feel about how I did. At this point I feel fucking horrible about it. My family law essays were BS from start to finish, and I feel like I missed a lot of issues on the others. And the MBE was a shitshow. Here's hoping the curve on this bitch is generous.

[arkhamhorror]

Best not to worry about it now! The last two weeks until they release the score are a little rough, so until then just forget about it as best you can. It's still socially acceptable to be drunk I think, despite it being before 9 a.m., so you can always do that.

[OklahomasOK]

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.

For the wills essays, I felt pretty good, hit all the high points and banked some time & points. I think I got most of the big issues on the spendthrift trusts, mentioned the revocable/ irrevocable distinction, not sure if I applied it correctly.

The LLC question was straight-forward but I added some comments about LLCs being a desirable entity to form because of tax benefits and limited liability. The GP question was strange. I didn't have much to say but I think I hit all the high points. I said the liability portion was OK because it didn't really conflict with the DOC/ DOL and the choice of law provision was obviously wrong. Kinda pissed no corporations questions. I knew the piss out of that stuff.

I went with SOF for the first part of the O&G question and probably missed the second part b/c I said the implied easement is absolute because mineral interest is dominant. Hopefully my CREAC carried me home.

I really hedged my bets on real property and memorized the foreclosure rules, banked some points of the first part. I'm pretty sure the bank was required to prove the disclosure because the sale wasn't conducted in connection with the foreclosure. A buyer takes as is at a foreclosure sale, but this was a month later--I don't know though. I felt my made-up rule sounded pretty good.

Family law was pretty straight forward. I think the prenup question was a factual call and I ended up going through the factors to consider when splitting up an estate. Kinda threw everything at the fan in hope I could justify giving him some maintenance.

On secured, I said BIOCOB, Landlord (because automatic perfection in proceeds had lapsed), and Seller (b/c perfection by control). On the last question, which was the toughest. For some dumbass reason I said that implied warranties were not available for farm products. I really had no clue but I didn't think I'd lose many points because express warranties would apply and could not be waived. I said she could give a writing to the bank to stop payment.

On the last question, I though the call of the question was wrong. I thought it would be breaches of contract warranties. Contract warranties apply when you want to enforce against the indorser of the note. I went down the HDC route with Carl saying he was an HDC of a negotiable instrument. I said that the Drawer of the note had a real defense to enforcement for two reasons: 1) insolvency and 2) alteration. She would be liable to the extent of the original obligation, I think.

Congrats everyone. Have a beer (or 5) and try to relax!