NY Bar Feb Exam: Support Group Forum

[Diceman102]

What did you guys think of the Essays?

The essays were pretty straightforward. I missed a couple of issues like totten trust (I said it was irrevocable because it is the rule in NY ) , the one about arson was very disorganised etc but I did much better than last July. Also I think I applied the wrong test for the conflict of law issue.

I hope i'll be able to get 50 for each essay but when I think about the numbers of issues I missed i'm not sure ! I really hope to get good grades on the essays because I'm bad at the MBE.

Concerning the MBE...i feel better than last july but like I said on the mbe topic, I can"t say If I will get 115 scaled or 135. Or a poor 125.

Anyway, I did much better, I really hope to pass. If I fail it will be by 10 points max I think.

If I fail by more than 10 or 20 points, I won't take the exam anymore, I really did my best and can't do better so if I get a 634, meh.

i completely missed the trusts thing. i didn't really study that. and power of attorney? ugh. all other 4 essays ok. was the crim stuff supposed to be easy?

I missed that it was a totten trust, just totally overlooked that when I saw that it was silent on the issue of revocability I just presumed the general rule applied. I also messed up that the residuary devise was a pour-over will, again just an oversight. The Criminal section which is normally a strong suit of mine I found pretty difficult. I put the correct rule for arson (albeit i listed it as 4th degree instead of 3rd) and conspiracy, learning today, has multiple degrees, didn't know that. Also messed up evaluating renunciation as a defense; I thought it was valid if he renounces his participation and takes substantial acts to prevent the conspiracy, apparently; he needs to actually prevent the conspiracy. What sucks is I spent alot of time on that one, and didn't really get to finish the corporations/contract one that I knew very well. I fudged the ny choice of law but ultimately got it correct, total luck truthfully, I just remembered that NY choice of law has some numier or wahtever factors. then just said all the parties are domiciled in ny so ny has an interest in applying their law. the first essay was very easy, (equitable distribution, enforcement of restrictive covenants);

Just hoping it's enough to get me by.

same here for all except the totten trust (was it really pour over? i said no to the letter because it was not executed properly aka not a codicil) i just spilled everything i knew about interested directors/contracts for that one. renunciation i called withdrawal (does that work?) essay 4 was my strongest. i work in a pi firm (7 years) and knew all about that. maybe that will save me.

-----------
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Totten trust was not an issue. Thats when a depositor opens up a bank account in the beneficiary's name... Instead I thought it was a lifetime trust that is by default irrevocable/unamendable unless trust expressly reserves such right in the trust. And also all beneficiaries must coonsent to amend... I thought that was what the question was asking

I believe i had this as well because I felt that totten trusts are only created with a bank where beneficiaries receive proceeds upon depositor's death. Torrent trusts are revocable and fail if beneficiaries die before depositor. Thus the facts to me didn't seem that husband and wife created a totten trust. Moreover, I said that the pour over will was correct with regards to residue estate since the trust existed before the will and that the incorporation into the will by reference to the list in his drawer was ineffective under ny law. That's all I rem about this question

[bwy33]

What did you guys think of the Essays?

The essays were pretty straightforward. I missed a couple of issues like totten trust (I said it was irrevocable because it is the rule in NY ) , the one about arson was very disorganised etc but I did much better than last July. Also I think I applied the wrong test for the conflict of law issue.

I hope i'll be able to get 50 for each essay but when I think about the numbers of issues I missed i'm not sure ! I really hope to get good grades on the essays because I'm bad at the MBE.

Concerning the MBE...i feel better than last july but like I said on the mbe topic, I can"t say If I will get 115 scaled or 135. Or a poor 125.

Anyway, I did much better, I really hope to pass. If I fail it will be by 10 points max I think.

If I fail by more than 10 or 20 points, I won't take the exam anymore, I really did my best and can't do better so if I get a 634, meh.

i completely missed the trusts thing. i didn't really study that. and power of attorney? ugh. all other 4 essays ok. was the crim stuff supposed to be easy?

I missed that it was a totten trust, just totally overlooked that when I saw that it was silent on the issue of revocability I just presumed the general rule applied. I also messed up that the residuary devise was a pour-over will, again just an oversight. The Criminal section which is normally a strong suit of mine I found pretty difficult. I put the correct rule for arson (albeit i listed it as 4th degree instead of 3rd) and conspiracy, learning today, has multiple degrees, didn't know that. Also messed up evaluating renunciation as a defense; I thought it was valid if he renounces his participation and takes substantial acts to prevent the conspiracy, apparently; he needs to actually prevent the conspiracy. What sucks is I spent alot of time on that one, and didn't really get to finish the corporations/contract one that I knew very well. I fudged the ny choice of law but ultimately got it correct, total luck truthfully, I just remembered that NY choice of law has some numier or wahtever factors. then just said all the parties are domiciled in ny so ny has an interest in applying their law. the first essay was very easy, (equitable distribution, enforcement of restrictive covenants);

Just hoping it's enough to get me by.

same here for all except the totten trust (was it really pour over? i said no to the letter because it was not executed properly aka not a codicil) i just spilled everything i knew about interested directors/contracts for that one. renunciation i called withdrawal (does that work?) essay 4 was my strongest. i work in a pi firm (7 years) and knew all about that. maybe that will save me.

-----------
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Totten trust was not an issue. Thats when a depositor opens up a bank account in the beneficiary's name... Instead I thought it was a lifetime trust that is by default irrevocable/unamendable unless trust expressly reserves such right in the trust. And also all beneficiaries must coonsent to amend... I thought that was what the question was asking

I believe i had this as well because I felt that totten trusts are only created with a bank where beneficiaries receive proceeds upon depositor's death. Torrent trusts are revocable and fail if beneficiaries die before depositor. Thus the facts to me didn't seem that husband and wife created a totten trust. Moreover, I said that the pour over will was correct with regards to residue estate since the trust existed before the will and that the incorporation into the will by reference to the list in his drawer was ineffective under ny law. That's all I rem about this question

Ah, thank you so much! I agree with you. Pour over gift to an existing trust is valid as an exception to the no incorporation by reference in a will in New York, so I said the same as well. Hope the essays will save me..

[NY_Sea]

Ah, thank you so much! I agree with you. Pour over gift to an existing trust is valid as an exception to the no incorporation by reference in a will in New York, so I said the same as well. Hope the essays will save me..

I wasn't talking about the pour-over gift... I was talking about the provision of the will that said "distribute my property according to the instructions in the letter in my desk". That's where the incorporation by reference issue comes in.

The pour-over gift was fine, because pour-over gifts are allowed if the trust was either already made or made alongside the will and the will names it specifically.

I also went with a straight amendment of trust analysis since I didn't think that the trust was a totten trust... Trusts are irrevocable and unamendable unless stated in the trust or: 1) The purpose of the trust is no longer being furthered or 2) Consent from all the beneficiaries. Said there was no facts saying there was consent and even if the one kid consented, the other who was getting cut out sure as hell wouldn't have consented.

[iwantmybar]

NY_Sea :

Personally I went with roughly the same analysis.

I said it was irrevocable (default rule in NY ) but I wanted to come back to the essay and it was revocable bc of a totten trust but didn't have time, I was too busy to help Anderson and her claim.

I really hope I will get at least 50 to each essay and also the MPT because I know for sure that my mbe score won't be stellar at all.

[JimmyConway]

Ah, thank you so much! I agree with you. Pour over gift to an existing trust is valid as an exception to the no incorporation by reference in a will in New York, so I said the same as well. Hope the essays will save me..

I wasn't talking about the pour-over gift... I was talking about the provision of the will that said "distribute my property according to the instructions in the letter in my desk". That's where the incorporation by reference issue comes in.

The pour-over gift was fine, because pour-over gifts are allowed if the trust was either already made or made alongside the will and the will names it specifically.

I also went with a straight amendment of trust analysis since I didn't think that the trust was a totten trust... Trusts are irrevocable and unamendable unless stated in the trust or: 1) The purpose of the trust is no longer being furthered or 2) Consent from all the beneficiaries. Said there was no facts saying there was consent and even if the one kid consented, the other who was getting cut out sure as hell wouldn't have consented.

I had the same analysis, except I mistakenly treated only the father and the mother as the beneficiaries. So when the mother died, I said that the father was the only remaining beneficiary and he consented. I know that's wrong, but I got the rule down so do you think that will burn me?

Anyone use agency analysis for the power of attorney issue?

[NY_Sea]

Ah, thank you so much! I agree with you. Pour over gift to an existing trust is valid as an exception to the no incorporation by reference in a will in New York, so I said the same as well. Hope the essays will save me..

I wasn't talking about the pour-over gift... I was talking about the provision of the will that said "distribute my property according to the instructions in the letter in my desk". That's where the incorporation by reference issue comes in.

The pour-over gift was fine, because pour-over gifts are allowed if the trust was either already made or made alongside the will and the will names it specifically.

I also went with a straight amendment of trust analysis since I didn't think that the trust was a totten trust... Trusts are irrevocable and unamendable unless stated in the trust or: 1) The purpose of the trust is no longer being furthered or 2) Consent from all the beneficiaries. Said there was no facts saying there was consent and even if the one kid consented, the other who was getting cut out sure as hell wouldn't have consented.

I had the same analysis, except I mistakenly treated only the father and the mother as the beneficiaries. So when the mother died, I said that the father was the only remaining beneficiary and he consented. I know that's wrong, but I got the rule down so do you think that will burn me?

Anyone use agency analysis for the power of attorney issue?

I don't think it'll hurt you that much... That's maybe a point out of god knows how many with 5 subparts. I had the same analysis for the POA.

[Barslammer]

1. Totten trust? I don't think so. Pour Over! Default rule is irrevocable and unamendable unless exceptions. You know what they are.

2. Court denying defendants' motion to change venue. No good. Queens county. Yea sure. She was from kings, they were from Nassau. Also she didn't respond to their motion and defaulted. Judge had to grant defendants' motion.

Notice to admit, wrong for court to grant her motion to dismiss the motion. It goes to loss allocation and connects to NY vehicle traffic law for no hand held device while driving. Since NY law applied. Judge should compel her to admit for purpose of loss allocation (not conduct).

Joint and several liability with 50% or less only reaponsible for portion of liability for non economic. This was great. It was from last time. Only problem is it doesn't apply to automobiles....hahah. She could get all from mechanic. Mechanic can get contribution from driver.

3. Anticipatory repidiation under Ucc output/requirements contract. Not INSTALLMENT.

Hardest question, Crim.

[NY_Sea]

1. Totten trust? I don't think so. Pour Over! Default rule is irrevocable and unamendable unless exceptions. You know what they are.

2. Court denying defendants' motion to change venue. No good. Queens county. Yea sure. She was from kings, they were from Nassau. Also she didn't respond to their motion and defaulted. Judge had to grant defendants' motion.

Notice to admit, wrong for court to grant her motion to dismiss the motion. It goes to loss allocation and connects to NY vehicle traffic law for no hand held device while driving. Since NY law applied. Judge should compel her to admit for purpose of loss allocation (not conduct).

Joint and several liability with 50% or less only reaponsible for portion of liability for non economic. This was great. It was from last time. Only problem is it doesn't apply to automobiles....hahah. She could get all from mechanic. Mechanic can get contribution from driver.

3. Anticipatory repidiation under Ucc output/requirements contract. Not INSTALLMENT.

Hardest question, Crim.

Article 16 applied to the mechanic for the pain and suffering... Article 16 doesn't apply if you are the driver or the owner of the car. The mechanic was neither of those. But yeah, she could get it all from the Mechanic for the medical expenses.

[starryski]

1. Totten trust? I don't think so. Pour Over! Default rule is irrevocable and unamendable unless exceptions. You know what they are.

2. Court denying defendants' motion to change venue. No good. Queens county. Yea sure. She was from kings, they were from Nassau. Also she didn't respond to their motion and defaulted. Judge had to grant defendants' motion.

Notice to admit, wrong for court to grant her motion to dismiss the motion. It goes to loss allocation and connects to NY vehicle traffic law for no hand held device while driving. Since NY law applied. Judge should compel her to admit for purpose of loss allocation (not conduct).

Joint and several liability with 50% or less only reaponsible for portion of liability for non economic. This was great. It was from last time. Only problem is it doesn't apply to automobiles....hahah. She could get all from mechanic. Mechanic can get contribution from driver.

3. Anticipatory repidiation under Ucc output/requirements contract. Not INSTALLMENT.

Hardest question, Crim.

Article 16 applied to the mechanic for the pain and suffering... Article 16 doesn't apply if you are the driver or the owner of the car. The mechanic was neither of those. But yeah, she could get it all from the Mechanic for the medical expenses.

well there is also an exception if a co-deft is found more than 50% liable. then they are exempted from Art 16 (its in Art 1602). so then the driver would be jointly and severally liab, and mechanic too because he was found more than 50% at fault? i didn't even discuss this. i just said auto case, exceptions apply, 16 doesn't. ugh.

[Barslammer]

Mechanic 30%
Driver van 60%
Driver emma plaintiff 10%

But it doesn't matter due to automobile exception. Bith van driver and mechanic are 100% on the hook for both exonomic and non economic damages.

[NY_Sea]

1. Totten trust? I don't think so. Pour Over! Default rule is irrevocable and unamendable unless exceptions. You know what they are.

2. Court denying defendants' motion to change venue. No good. Queens county. Yea sure. She was from kings, they were from Nassau. Also she didn't respond to their motion and defaulted. Judge had to grant defendants' motion.

Notice to admit, wrong for court to grant her motion to dismiss the motion. It goes to loss allocation and connects to NY vehicle traffic law for no hand held device while driving. Since NY law applied. Judge should compel her to admit for purpose of loss allocation (not conduct).

Joint and several liability with 50% or less only reaponsible for portion of liability for non economic. This was great. It was from last time. Only problem is it doesn't apply to automobiles....hahah. She could get all from mechanic. Mechanic can get contribution from driver.

3. Anticipatory repidiation under Ucc output/requirements contract. Not INSTALLMENT.

Hardest question, Crim.

Article 16 applied to the mechanic for the pain and suffering... Article 16 doesn't apply if you are the driver or the owner of the car. The mechanic was neither of those. But yeah, she could get it all from the Mechanic for the medical expenses.

well there is also an exception if a co-deft is found more than 50% liable. then they are exempted from Art 16 (its in Art 1602). so then the driver would be jointly and severally liab, and mechanic too because he was found more than 50% at fault? i didn't even discuss this. i just said auto case, exceptions apply, 16 doesn't. ugh.

I don't remember hearing or reading that exception at all... I'm pretty sure the Mechanic is good under Art. 16. That's where I'm at with that lol

[NY_Sea]

Mechanic 30%
Driver van 60%
Driver emma plaintiff 10%

But it doesn't matter due to automobile exception. Bith van driver and mechanic are 100% on the hook for both exonomic and non economic damages.

Yeah, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. The language of Art. 16 clearly says that only people who injure someone out of the use or ownership of the vehicle are excepted. The mechanic obviously didn't drive or own the car.

"The limitations set forth in this article shall not apply to any person held liable by reason of his use, operation, or ownership of a motor vehicle or motorcycle" - See more at: http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/civil-pract ... rF3FG.dpuf

[Barslammer]

Note, that the mechanic is the proximate cause of the van driver's brakes failing. So how unfair would it be to afford the van driver the protection of article 16 and not the mechanic. Let's say the mechanic was found 60% liable and the van driver 30%. Eseentially flip it. In that case the van driver is still not afforded article 16 protection because he was operating a vehicle (we would have to agree for 2 reasons: automobile exception and even if no automobile exception, under 50%). And the mechanic in this example is 60% liable and therefore is over the 50% and not afforded the protection of article 16. So in the original fact pattern, article 16 should not protect 1 defendant over a another in a joint tort action.

[NY_Sea]

Note, that the mechanic is the proximate cause of the van driver's brakes failing. So how unfair would it be to afford the van driver the protection of article 16 and not the mechanic. Let's say the mechanic was found 60% liable and the van driver 30%. Eseentially flip it. In that case the van driver is still not afforded article 16 protection because he was operating a vehicle (we would have to agree for 2 reasons: automobile exception and even if no automobile exception, under 50%). And the mechanic in this example is 60% liable and therefore is over the 50% and not afforded the protection of article 16. So in the original fact pattern, article 16 should not protect 1 defendant over a another in a joint tort action.

That's the reason Art. 16 was created though... to protect one person who was minimally liable from having to pay the full damages and then hunt down the other guy for contribution. Him being a cause, proximate or not, has nothing to do with whether he was driving, using, or operating the car. It may not be fair, but that's the language of the statute. And yes, btw, under your hypothetical scenario, you'd be right. Neither get Art. 16 because the driver was driving the car and the mechanic was over 50%. But that's not what the facts of the essay were.

Idk if you're trying to convince me, but we're just going in circles.

[Barslammer]

I kind of think I am convining you. Think about it. Bottom line is when a car is in the equation, no article 16 at all. Another argument is emma was driving a car and was found 10% at fault. Because she was driving a car, no article 16 protection for defendants. If emma was found 0% at fault, than both driver and mechanic could be at 50% and both would lose article 16 protection. Makes sense to me lol.

[NY_Sea]

I kind of think I am convining you. Think about it. Bottom line is when a car is in the equation, no article 16 at all. Another argument is emma was driving a car and was found 10% at fault. Because she was driving a car, no article 16 protection. If emma was found 0% at fault, than both driver and mechanic could be at 50% and both would lose article 16 protection. Makes sense to me lol.

You're not convincing me. I'm confident in my answer. 1) It's not as cut and dry as "if a car is involved, no article 16"... As I've said like 4 times now, you have to be using or own the car for the exception to apply. The mechanic only worked on the car, so he wasn't using the car and he didn't own it and he can use Art. 16. 2) Emma's fault doesn't come into play other than reducing the award under comparative negligence... Emma doesn't need article 16 protection because she's the plaintiff, she's not paying damages to anyone. And yes, if Emma was found to not be at fault at all, the driver and mechanic could be 50% each... But they weren't.

As long as it makes sense to you, then that's gravy. At the end of the day if you wrote an article 16 analysis, and we disagree on the conclusion, it's a minimal amount of points anyway.

[starryski]

1. Totten trust? I don't think so. Pour Over! Default rule is irrevocable and unamendable unless exceptions. You know what they are.

2. Court denying defendants' motion to change venue. No good. Queens county. Yea sure. She was from kings, they were from Nassau. Also she didn't respond to their motion and defaulted. Judge had to grant defendants' motion.

Notice to admit, wrong for court to grant her motion to dismiss the motion. It goes to loss allocation and connects to NY vehicle traffic law for no hand held device while driving. Since NY law applied. Judge should compel her to admit for purpose of loss allocation (not conduct).

Joint and several liability with 50% or less only reaponsible for portion of liability for non economic. This was great. It was from last time. Only problem is it doesn't apply to automobiles....hahah. She could get all from mechanic. Mechanic can get contribution from driver.

3. Anticipatory repidiation under Ucc output/requirements contract. Not INSTALLMENT.

Hardest question, Crim.

Article 16 applied to the mechanic for the pain and suffering... Article 16 doesn't apply if you are the driver or the owner of the car. The mechanic was neither of those. But yeah, she could get it all from the Mechanic for the medical expenses.

well there is also an exception if a co-deft is found more than 50% liable. then they are exempted from Art 16 (its in Art 1602). so then the driver would be jointly and severally liab, and mechanic too because he was found more than 50% at fault? i didn't even discuss this. i just said auto case, exceptions apply, 16 doesn't. ugh.

I don't remember hearing or reading that exception at all... I'm pretty sure the Mechanic is good under Art. 16. That's where I'm at with that lol

sorry i'm an ass. the 50% thing is in regards to Art 16 itself. it was part of the mnemonic i memorized so it's not an exception. well thank goodness i didn't write all that on the exam. also i can't believe they tested it twice in a row and not crim prop or wills twice in a row.

[NY_Sea]

1. Totten trust? I don't think so. Pour Over! Default rule is irrevocable and unamendable unless exceptions. You know what they are.

2. Court denying defendants' motion to change venue. No good. Queens county. Yea sure. She was from kings, they were from Nassau. Also she didn't respond to their motion and defaulted. Judge had to grant defendants' motion.

Notice to admit, wrong for court to grant her motion to dismiss the motion. It goes to loss allocation and connects to NY vehicle traffic law for no hand held device while driving. Since NY law applied. Judge should compel her to admit for purpose of loss allocation (not conduct).

Joint and several liability with 50% or less only reaponsible for portion of liability for non economic. This was great. It was from last time. Only problem is it doesn't apply to automobiles....hahah. She could get all from mechanic. Mechanic can get contribution from driver.

3. Anticipatory repidiation under Ucc output/requirements contract. Not INSTALLMENT.

Hardest question, Crim.

Article 16 applied to the mechanic for the pain and suffering... Article 16 doesn't apply if you are the driver or the owner of the car. The mechanic was neither of those. But yeah, she could get it all from the Mechanic for the medical expenses.

well there is also an exception if a co-deft is found more than 50% liable. then they are exempted from Art 16 (its in Art 1602). so then the driver would be jointly and severally liab, and mechanic too because he was found more than 50% at fault? i didn't even discuss this. i just said auto case, exceptions apply, 16 doesn't. ugh.

I don't remember hearing or reading that exception at all... I'm pretty sure the Mechanic is good under Art. 16. That's where I'm at with that lol

sorry i'm an ass. the 50% thing is in regards to Art 16 itself. it was part of the mnemonic i memorized so it's not an exception. well thank goodness i didn't write all that on the exam.

No worries... I think most of the people who know me from this thread and others know that I'm not a dick, but these essays are ripe for so many points and we all know that the rule/analysis parts are where the meat is. The conclusion, whether I'm right or you and Slammer are, is small potatoes at the end of the day. I think all of us need to take a break from this... Our brains are mush and I'm starting to realize that these types of threads don't help anyone calm down afterward. That and I don't want to get banned lol... This site is awesome and I don't want to do anything to jeopardize having it in the future. We all did fine... Believe me.

EDIT: Did anyone using a Mac have this thing where at the end of each session you would quit Examsoft once it tried to upload, but then you needed to force quit? The Examsoft guy came up to me and told me "Oh don't worry. Just force quit"... I literally said to him "Are you about to ruin my life?". I know it saves every minute locally on your computer, but that scared the shit out of me lol

[iwantmybar]

No worries.

My Mac froze and He casually turned it off manually without asking me. I was in should like "dude...u sure... ? "

[starryski]

1. Totten trust? I don't think so. Pour Over! Default rule is irrevocable and unamendable unless exceptions. You know what they are.

2. Court denying defendants' motion to change venue. No good. Queens county. Yea sure. She was from kings, they were from Nassau. Also she didn't respond to their motion and defaulted. Judge had to grant defendants' motion.

Notice to admit, wrong for court to grant her motion to dismiss the motion. It goes to loss allocation and connects to NY vehicle traffic law for no hand held device while driving. Since NY law applied. Judge should compel her to admit for purpose of loss allocation (not conduct).

Joint and several liability with 50% or less only reaponsible for portion of liability for non economic. This was great. It was from last time. Only problem is it doesn't apply to automobiles....hahah. She could get all from mechanic. Mechanic can get contribution from driver.

3. Anticipatory repidiation under Ucc output/requirements contract. Not INSTALLMENT.

Hardest question, Crim.

Article 16 applied to the mechanic for the pain and suffering... Article 16 doesn't apply if you are the driver or the owner of the car. The mechanic was neither of those. But yeah, she could get it all from the Mechanic for the medical expenses.

well there is also an exception if a co-deft is found more than 50% liable. then they are exempted from Art 16 (its in Art 1602). so then the driver would be jointly and severally liab, and mechanic too because he was found more than 50% at fault? i didn't even discuss this. i just said auto case, exceptions apply, 16 doesn't. ugh.

I don't remember hearing or reading that exception at all... I'm pretty sure the Mechanic is good under Art. 16. That's where I'm at with that lol

sorry i'm an ass. the 50% thing is in regards to Art 16 itself. it was part of the mnemonic i memorized so it's not an exception. well thank goodness i didn't write all that on the exam.

No worries... I think most of the people who know me from this thread and others know that I'm not a dick, but these essays are ripe for so many points and we all know that the rule/analysis parts are where the meat is. The conclusion, whether I'm right or you and Slammer are, is small potatoes at the end of the day. I think all of us need to take a break from this... Our brains are mush and I'm starting to realize that these types of threads don't help anyone calm down afterward. That and I don't want to get banned lol... This site is awesome and I don't want to do anything to jeopardize having it in the future. We all did fine... Believe me.

EDIT: Did anyone using a Mac have this thing where at the end of each session you would quit Examsoft once it tried to upload, but then you needed to force quit? The Examsoft guy came up to me and told me "Oh don't worry. Just force quit"... I literally said to him "Are you about to ruin my life?". I know it saves every minute locally on your computer, but that scared the shit out of me lol

that happened to me in July. My essays were fine, although after failing i hoped it somehow deleted or failed to save an essay. lol

[mikefichera]

So was that a totten trust or no, I can't seem to figure it out. Hearing conflicting things from people. I don't remember the facts saying it was a bank account or anything.

[Worthless1]

How did you all analyze that essay question regarding "Park" and "Emma?" Whether the company or corporation could sue Park for Emma's screw up after he assigned his tasks to her... can't remember the exact question. I analyzed the issue pursuant to agency principles. I didn't think piercing the corporate veil would apply as to Emma because she herself was not a shareholder.

[sd5289]

Missed 5 multiple choice question on the NYMC - feel awful about that.

I'm almost positive I missed at least 50% of the NYMC in July. I still passed. Don't even worry about the NYMC.

[mikefichera]

How did you all analyze that essay question regarding "Park" and "Emma?" Whether the company or corporation could sue Park for Emma's screw up after he assigned his tasks to her... can't remember the exact question. I analyzed the issue pursuant to agency principles. I didn't think piercing the corporate veil would apply as to Emma because she herself was not a shareholder.

Isn't there a rule that profession partnerships are liable for the negligence of other professionals in their employ, especially if they were supervised.

[iwantmybar]

How did you all analyze that essay question regarding "Park" and "Emma?" Whether the company or corporation could sue Park for Emma's screw up after he assigned his tasks to her... can't remember the exact question. I analyzed the issue pursuant to agency principles. I didn't think piercing the corporate veil would apply as to Emma because she herself was not a shareholder.

My analysis was :

-Delegation from park to emma. He is still liable because he just delegated. She committed negligence > he is liable.

Then I said that the corp was liable for all the losses incurred but that Park was still liable for his tortious act because he is was a certified engineer or some shit.