Butchering the MEE and Still Passing (UBE) Forum

[udonisandtrinity]

Moderators, I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss, so apologies in advance.

For the 1st MPT, I did not analyze the issue with the dog/damages. I just wrote a conclusion because I ran out of time. I completed everything else but not sure the analysis made sense. I think each issue had two discussion points: (1) liability and (2) remedies. I combined them into one analysis under each issue.

For the second MPT, I was able to finish, but the second major issue (home office deduction) was literally 5-7 sentences max. I ran out of time. It was in IRAC form but each part had 1 or 2 sentences.

In my opinion, if you did well on your MBE, what you have here is more than enough for a passing grade.

I did not do well on the essays. What is considered "well" on the MBE?

[RecoveringJD]

Moderators, I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss, so apologies in advance.

For the 1st MPT, I did not analyze the issue with the dog/damages. I just wrote a conclusion because I ran out of time. I completed everything else but not sure the analysis made sense. I think each issue had two discussion points: (1) liability and (2) remedies. I combined them into one analysis under each issue.

For the second MPT, I was able to finish, but the second major issue (home office deduction) was literally 5-7 sentences max. I ran out of time. It was in IRAC form but each part had 1 or 2 sentences.

In my opinion, if you did well on your MBE, what you have here is more than enough for a passing grade.

I did not do well on the essays. What is considered "well" on the MBE?

Median score?

[whitecollar23]

So I just did not utilize my time well at all. I answered the first MPT (both parts) but thought my analysis was horrible because I barely used case law and facts. For the second MPT, I had barely any time so I did headings for both parts. Completed half of part one but had to bullet point second half. Part 2 had a heading and about a 6 sentence IRAC.

The essays were a train wreck. Bombed secured transactions. Felt ok about LLP evidence and civ pro. Bombed torts bc I didn't realize analyze. Issue spotted correctly on contracts but didn't really have an analysis.

If Barbri didn't lie to me and my simulated MBE goes up 20 points, I'd have a 160 MBE. But that seems unlikely.

If you get a 160 you're gold. Like you, I read the torts questions and just stared at the paper.

Is it normal that I'm more stressed out about the MBE? And to think I thought I was way more prepared for the MBE.

It's normal. I am in the same boat. If I passed, it was only because I blew the doors off of the MBE, because I wrote my essays like a third grader.

Wouldn't that put you in the opposite boat? Though, neither boat is fun, haha.

[whitecollar23]

I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man...

One sub question was crim pro. I think everything else was evidence. I think I got the issues but got slaughtered on market share liability in torts and SecTrans.

There were at least two questions, I believe, that were more toward crim pro, maybe three. But all of them had some quick thing you could say about both evidence and crim pro.

[whitecollar23]

Moderators, I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss, so apologies in advance.

For the 1st MPT, I did not analyze the issue with the dog/damages. I just wrote a conclusion because I ran out of time. I completed everything else but not sure the analysis made sense. I think each issue had two discussion points: (1) liability and (2) remedies. I combined them into one analysis under each issue.

For the second MPT, I was able to finish, but the second major issue (home office deduction) was literally 5-7 sentences max. I ran out of time. It was in IRAC form but each part had 1 or 2 sentences.

In my opinion, if you did well on your MBE, what you have here is more than enough for a passing grade.

I did not do well on the essays. What is considered "well" on the MBE?

fwiw, I had time to finish the second MPT, thought it was the best MPT I've ever written (did 4 practice ones), and don't think I wrote more than a few sentences on the home office issue. It was really just a quick compare and contrast of it to the case that was similar to it. The bulk of that MPT was the 9 factors. It was overall a very fact-based MPT and if you organized it well and entered the relevant facts as you went along, you probably did it well.

[ellewoods123]

Moderators, I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss, so apologies in advance.

For the 1st MPT, I did not analyze the issue with the dog/damages. I just wrote a conclusion because I ran out of time. I completed everything else but not sure the analysis made sense. I think each issue had two discussion points: (1) liability and (2) remedies. I combined them into one analysis under each issue.

For the second MPT, I was able to finish, but the second major issue (home office deduction) was literally 5-7 sentences max. I ran out of time. It was in IRAC form but each part had 1 or 2 sentences.

In my opinion, if you did well on your MBE, what you have here is more than enough for a passing grade.

I did not do well on the essays. What is considered "well" on the MBE?

fwiw, I had time to finish the second MPT, thought it was the best MPT I've ever written (did 4 practice ones), and don't think I wrote more than a few sentences on the home office issue. It was really just a quick compare and contrast of it to the case that was similar to it. The bulk of that MPT was the 9 factors. It was overall a very fact-based MPT and if you organized it well and entered the relevant facts as you went along, you probably did it well.

Who says shit like this. Gold star for u.

[styr]

fwiw, I had time to finish the second MPT, thought it was the best MPT I've ever written (did 4 practice ones), and don't think I wrote more than a few sentences on the home office issue. It was really just a quick compare and contrast of it to the case that was similar to it. The bulk of that MPT was the 9 factors. It was overall a very fact-based MPT and if you organized it well and entered the relevant facts as you went along, you probably did it well.

I think I spent almost as much time/words on the room deduction as whether it was a business for profit. The 9 factors seemed straightforward, because there were so few facts relevant to each one, so it was like a deterministic plug-and-chug, with some factual counterarguments to be made on a number of them. I did not see much in the way of "contrary authority" in the Library, but that room deduction case was affirmed in part and reversed in part, so you just had to cite to both of those fact patterns in the same case as supporting authority and contrary authority.

Also, that second one for the taxes was a brief with a template, but I didn't find the instructions too unusual. Using "descriptive headers" is something that I do anyway, and they didn't have strange requirements like use a complete sentence with a conjunction.

Compared to some practice MPTs, I thought both of the real ones here were thin in the way of both File and Library. That just allowed more time to write, which always helps. I finished both MPTs comfortably, but I spent 20 minutes longer on the first one (landlord-tenant) than the second one (taxation). I just hope that all means that I didn't overlook something glaring that I should have spotted, like not seeing some extra library cases at the end.

[mvp99]

fwiw, I had time to finish the second MPT, thought it was the best MPT I've ever written (did 4 practice ones), and don't think I wrote more than a few sentences on the home office issue. It was really just a quick compare and contrast of it to the case that was similar to it. The bulk of that MPT was the 9 factors. It was overall a very fact-based MPT and if you organized it well and entered the relevant facts as you went along, you probably did it well.

I think I spent almost as much time/words on the room deduction as whether it was a business for profit. The 9 factors seemed straightforward, because there were so few facts relevant to each one, so it was like a deterministic plug-and-chug, with some factual counterarguments to be made on a number of them. I did not see much in the way of "contrary authority" in the Library, but that room deduction case was affirmed in part and reversed in part, so you just had to cite to both of those fact patterns in the same case as supporting authority and contrary authority.

Also, that second one for the taxes was a brief with a template, but I didn't find the instructions too unusual. Using "descriptive headers" is something that I do anyway, and they didn't have strange requirements like use a complete sentence with a conjunction.

Compared to some practice MPTs, I thought both of the real ones here were thin in the way of both File and Library. That just allowed more time to write, which always helps. I finished both MPTs comfortably, but I spent 20 minutes longer on the first one (landlord-tenant) than the second one (taxation). I just hope that all means that I didn't overlook something glaring that I should have spotted, like not seeing some extra library cases at the end.

You did use the legislative history on the last 2 pages, right?

[styr]

fwiw, I had time to finish the second MPT, thought it was the best MPT I've ever written (did 4 practice ones), and don't think I wrote more than a few sentences on the home office issue. It was really just a quick compare and contrast of it to the case that was similar to it. The bulk of that MPT was the 9 factors. It was overall a very fact-based MPT and if you organized it well and entered the relevant facts as you went along, you probably did it well.

I think I spent almost as much time/words on the room deduction as whether it was a business for profit. The 9 factors seemed straightforward, because there were so few facts relevant to each one, so it was like a deterministic plug-and-chug, with some factual counterarguments to be made on a number of them. I did not see much in the way of "contrary authority" in the Library, but that room deduction case was affirmed in part and reversed in part, so you just had to cite to both of those fact patterns in the same case as supporting authority and contrary authority.

Also, that second one for the taxes was a brief with a template, but I didn't find the instructions too unusual. Using "descriptive headers" is something that I do anyway, and they didn't have strange requirements like use a complete sentence with a conjunction.

Compared to some practice MPTs, I thought both of the real ones here were thin in the way of both File and Library. That just allowed more time to write, which always helps. I finished both MPTs comfortably, but I spent 20 minutes longer on the first one (landlord-tenant) than the second one (taxation). I just hope that all means that I didn't overlook something glaring that I should have spotted, like not seeing some extra library cases at the end.

You did use the legislative history on the last 2 pages, right?

Crap. I made a brief mention of it, but I didn't apply it in the "all-or-nothing" statement that I had intended to make.

[whitecollar23]

Moderators, I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss, so apologies in advance.

For the 1st MPT, I did not analyze the issue with the dog/damages. I just wrote a conclusion because I ran out of time. I completed everything else but not sure the analysis made sense. I think each issue had two discussion points: (1) liability and (2) remedies. I combined them into one analysis under each issue.

For the second MPT, I was able to finish, but the second major issue (home office deduction) was literally 5-7 sentences max. I ran out of time. It was in IRAC form but each part had 1 or 2 sentences.

In my opinion, if you did well on your MBE, what you have here is more than enough for a passing grade.

I did not do well on the essays. What is considered "well" on the MBE?

fwiw, I had time to finish the second MPT, thought it was the best MPT I've ever written (did 4 practice ones), and don't think I wrote more than a few sentences on the home office issue. It was really just a quick compare and contrast of it to the case that was similar to it. The bulk of that MPT was the 9 factors. It was overall a very fact-based MPT and if you organized it well and entered the relevant facts as you went along, you probably did it well.

Who says shit like this. Gold star for u.

lawl. person felt bad that they only had 5 sentences on the last issue, so trying to make them feel better by saying I thought I did really well and had about the same. compassion, people, compassion.

[whitecollar23]

fwiw, I had time to finish the second MPT, thought it was the best MPT I've ever written (did 4 practice ones), and don't think I wrote more than a few sentences on the home office issue. It was really just a quick compare and contrast of it to the case that was similar to it. The bulk of that MPT was the 9 factors. It was overall a very fact-based MPT and if you organized it well and entered the relevant facts as you went along, you probably did it well.

I think I spent almost as much time/words on the room deduction as whether it was a business for profit. The 9 factors seemed straightforward, because there were so few facts relevant to each one, so it was like a deterministic plug-and-chug, with some factual counterarguments to be made on a number of them. I did not see much in the way of "contrary authority" in the Library, but that room deduction case was affirmed in part and reversed in part, so you just had to cite to both of those fact patterns in the same case as supporting authority and contrary authority.

Also, that second one for the taxes was a brief with a template, but I didn't find the instructions too unusual. Using "descriptive headers" is something that I do anyway, and they didn't have strange requirements like use a complete sentence with a conjunction.

Compared to some practice MPTs, I thought both of the real ones here were thin in the way of both File and Library. That just allowed more time to write, which always helps. I finished both MPTs comfortably, but I spent 20 minutes longer on the first one (landlord-tenant) than the second one (taxation). I just hope that all means that I didn't overlook something glaring that I should have spotted, like not seeing some extra library cases at the end.

You did use the legislative history on the last 2 pages, right?

Crap. I made a brief mention of it, but I didn't apply it in the "all-or-nothing" statement that I had intended to make.

What did the legislative history say, again? Wasn't it just repeating the whole fact that it must be exclusively used for business? I don't think I mentioned it explicitly, as I think it just got mixed in with everything else as being blah blah all-or-nothing. Of the people I spoke to in between sections, they also seemed to not write much on the home business and write the bulk on the 9 factors. And these were like super duper students that I spoke to.

[styr]

What did the legislative history say, again? Wasn't it just repeating the whole fact that it must be exclusively used for business? I don't think I mentioned it explicitly, as I think it just got mixed in with everything else as being blah blah all-or-nothing. Of the people I spoke to in between sections, they also seemed to not write much on the home business and write the bulk on the 9 factors. And these were like super duper students that I spoke to.

I forget exactly, but it was something to the effect that the legislators had intended for parts of homes to get a deduction only if used only for business all of the time, so no half-deductions if you use it half for business all of the time or all for business half of the time. The last case in the library had a split, where it found one place to qualify for the deduction and another place not to qualify, so I figure that needed to be in the answer to fulfill the template's instructions to use contrary authority where applicable. The template also said to make concessions where necessary but not to concede a main point. I assumed that some of the 9 factors could be conceded, because you didn't need all 9 in favor of the taxpayer.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

fwiw, I had time to finish the second MPT, thought it was the best MPT I've ever written (did 4 practice ones), and don't think I wrote more than a few sentences on the home office issue. It was really just a quick compare and contrast of it to the case that was similar to it. The bulk of that MPT was the 9 factors. It was overall a very fact-based MPT and if you organized it well and entered the relevant facts as you went along, you probably did it well.

I think I spent almost as much time/words on the room deduction as whether it was a business for profit. The 9 factors seemed straightforward, because there were so few facts relevant to each one, so it was like a deterministic plug-and-chug, with some factual counterarguments to be made on a number of them. I did not see much in the way of "contrary authority" in the Library, but that room deduction case was affirmed in part and reversed in part, so you just had to cite to both of those fact patterns in the same case as supporting authority and contrary authority.

Also, that second one for the taxes was a brief with a template, but I didn't find the instructions too unusual. Using "descriptive headers" is something that I do anyway, and they didn't have strange requirements like use a complete sentence with a conjunction.

Compared to some practice MPTs, I thought both of the real ones here were thin in the way of both File and Library. That just allowed more time to write, which always helps. I finished both MPTs comfortably, but I spent 20 minutes longer on the first one (landlord-tenant) than the second one (taxation). I just hope that all means that I didn't overlook something glaring that I should have spotted, like not seeing some extra library cases at the end.

You did use the legislative history on the last 2 pages, right?

I never got to that. Or the cases. Too busy going through the factors. Fucked?

[mvp99]

fwiw, I had time to finish the second MPT, thought it was the best MPT I've ever written (did 4 practice ones), and don't think I wrote more than a few sentences on the home office issue. It was really just a quick compare and contrast of it to the case that was similar to it. The bulk of that MPT was the 9 factors. It was overall a very fact-based MPT and if you organized it well and entered the relevant facts as you went along, you probably did it well.

I think I spent almost as much time/words on the room deduction as whether it was a business for profit. The 9 factors seemed straightforward, because there were so few facts relevant to each one, so it was like a deterministic plug-and-chug, with some factual counterarguments to be made on a number of them. I did not see much in the way of "contrary authority" in the Library, but that room deduction case was affirmed in part and reversed in part, so you just had to cite to both of those fact patterns in the same case as supporting authority and contrary authority.

Also, that second one for the taxes was a brief with a template, but I didn't find the instructions too unusual. Using "descriptive headers" is something that I do anyway, and they didn't have strange requirements like use a complete sentence with a conjunction.

Compared to some practice MPTs, I thought both of the real ones here were thin in the way of both File and Library. That just allowed more time to write, which always helps. I finished both MPTs comfortably, but I spent 20 minutes longer on the first one (landlord-tenant) than the second one (taxation). I just hope that all means that I didn't overlook something glaring that I should have spotted, like not seeing some extra library cases at the end.

You did use the legislative history on the last 2 pages, right?

I never got to that. Or the cases. Too busy going through the factors. Fucked?

I'm joking. (about the legislative history)

Did it look complete? I read that's important.

[LionelHutzJD]

Moderators, I'm not sure if we are allowed to discuss, so apologies in advance.

For the 1st MPT, I did not analyze the issue with the dog/damages. I just wrote a conclusion because I ran out of time. I completed everything else but not sure the analysis made sense. I think each issue had two discussion points: (1) liability and (2) remedies. I combined them into one analysis under each issue.

For the second MPT, I was able to finish, but the second major issue (home office deduction) was literally 5-7 sentences max. I ran out of time. It was in IRAC form but each part had 1 or 2 sentences.

You wiill be fine. But there was a few things that could have been discussed with the dog (the specific reference in the lease and one of the statutes was directly on point).

Didn't something in the first MPT say that there was separate doc saying that the dog was allowed? Also, don't think it mattered because the statute said if animals or guests cause damage, you're responsible. So seemed to be irrelevant if she had permission for the dog.

There was a separate pet addendum that wasn't provided by the client yet. It said that the pet was authorized. There was a separate Franklin statute that contradicted this.

[styr]

There was a separate pet addendum that wasn't provided by the client yet. It said that the pet was authorized. There was a separate Franklin statute that contradicted this.

What exactly contradicted? I remember that the lease directly contradicted the pet agreement, so we were supposed to assume that the later addendum would govern. The only statute I saw on point was that tenants are not supposed to let animals destroy part of the property or its appurtenances, or they will otherwise be liable for the damage themselves rather than the landlord.

[LionelHutzJD]

If I remember all this correctly

There was a pet addendum that was to be provided by client a week later. The addendum made the pet authorized pursuant to the lease agreement. BUT there was a statute re pet damage whether he was authorized or not.

[styr]

If I remember all this correctly

There was a pet addendum that was to be provided by client a week later. The addendum made the pet authorized pursuant to the lease agreement. BUT there was a statute re pet damage whether he was authorized or not.

Yeah, sounds right. Based on the statute, I think I said something like the tenant was still liable for the dog damage unless the landlord expressly assumed liability under freedom of contract. Maybe that extra flair is worth an extra credit point somewhere.

[BillCooper]

I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man...

You're not the only one that missed that evidence/crim pro, bro. I wanted to write that can't come in because of 5th Amendment and it would be plain error to state that he asked for a lawyer. But I depended on my prep and I was like "I've never seen a model answer that mixed up topics, other than Conflict."

Boy, how I wish I would have went with my gut.

[whitecollar23]

I am still speechless how difficult the MEE was. I've been doing so well on the practice ones. Am I the only one who didn't know about crim pro mixed in with the evidence question until after? ... I just know it's going to hurt my score. Do you guys think the essays this year will be graded with more leniency? I mean under the circumstance with this unexpected questions, how much of the curve will be set to help us. Oh man...

You're not the only one that missed that evidence/crim pro, bro. I wanted to write that can't come in because of 5th Amendment and it would be plain error to state that he asked for a lawyer. But I depended on my prep and I was like "I've never seen a model answer that mixed up topics, other than Conflict."

Boy, how I wish I would have went with my gut.

Wouldn't be plain error given that he was re-mirandized in a different location a long time after.

[whitecollar23]

Anyone remember if the long email thread was relevant beside for letting us know that she gave the LL notice and he was a jerk and did nothing?

[mvp99]

[styr]

Anyone remember if the long email thread was relevant beside for letting us know that she gave the LL notice and he was a jerk and did nothing?

I used the dates to establish a timeline. There was some other statutory provision about tenant self-help within a reasonable time, defining that as 30 days of giving notice to the landlord. It didn't specify what was reasonable for the landlord to do, or what would happen if the tenant took longer. Just BS the possibilities.

[styr]

( “[T]he district court is under no obligation to suppress evidence sua sponte.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1182, 115 S.Ct. 1172, 130 L.Ed.2d 1125 (1995). I.e. it is not an error to not exclude evidence that should've been suppressed.

Sua sponte implies that no party objects, and the court excludes on its own motion. If a party objects, and evidence is admitted improperly over the objection, then it is an error, at least if it affects a substantial right. [citation needed]

[mvp99]