2017 February California Bar Exam Forum

[RickSanchez]

On essay 2, did S have knowledge that a murder occurred in the condo? I thought he had no knowledge and was only the owner right after the murder took place. If there is no knowledge, then there cant be COA for fraud, right?

The murder was a rabbit hole fact. The real fraud issue was knowing about the parking space going away.

No, parking space was not material fact. $50 a month is not material. 20% decrease in value is.

Are you saying there was no duty to disclose the murder? Honest question. I was trying to look up the answer, but generally I don't think there is a duty at CL. She didn't ask him if there was a murder before she bought right? (sorry to beat a dead horse..I'm intrigued).

I understand there is the usual rule of caveat emptor, but some courts found that well selling stigmatized properties you have to disclose. California, for example, you and your real estate agent have an obligation to disclose murders. Even outside of that, Steve sold the property at $200,000 knowing that it was only worth $160,000 BECAUSE of the murders. You could argue it's not material, but you could argue it's material as well: either way you could write a good essay as long as you mention it in the essay and analyze them.

[RickSanchez]

On essay 2, did S have knowledge that a murder occurred in the condo? I thought he had no knowledge and was only the owner right after the murder took place. If there is no knowledge, then there cant be COA for fraud, right?

The murder was a rabbit hole fact. The real fraud issue was knowing about the parking space going away.

No, parking space was not material fact. $50 a month is not material. 20% decrease in value is.

Are you saying there was no duty to disclose the murder? Honest question. I was trying to look up the answer, but generally I don't think there is a duty at CL. She didn't ask him if there was a murder before she bought right? (sorry to beat a dead horse..I'm intrigued).

I understand there is the usual rule of caveat emptor, but some courts found that well selling stigmatized properties you have to disclose. California, for example, you and your real estate agent have an obligation to disclose murders. Even outside of that, Steve sold the property at $200,000 knowing that it was only worth $160,000 BECAUSE of the murders. You could argue it's not material, but you could argue it's material as well: either way you could write a good essay as long as you mention it in the essay and analyze them.

Look here:

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/violent-de ... 92401.html

"In California, the case Reed v King paved the way for future stigmatized property lawsuits. In this case Reed bought a house that was the site of a multiple murder ten years earlier. The seller did not disclose the crime. The crucial question for the court was whether the stigma attached to the house affected its value or desirability in a sufficiently material manner, such that the seller had a duty to disclose it. The court decided that it did."

[Penelopesharp]

uh, did nobody mention that the SOF applies because it was a contract for conveyance of real property? And parking wasnt included as an essential term of the contract. Kinda makes it hard to argue fraud based on something that wasnt even in the contract and only resulted in $50/month in consequential damages.

Murder was def the material fact more significant.

[RickSanchez]

uh, did nobody mention that the SOF applies because it was a contract for conveyance of real property? And parking wasnt included as an essential term of the contract. Kinda makes it hard to argue fraud based on something that wasnt even in the contract and only resulted in $50/month in consequential damages.

This is a good point, but I think you could argue that the $50/month is a foreseeable consequential damage (or maybe even incidental?). But you are right, PER might prevent this part of the negotiation from being litigated.

[Penelopesharp]

uh, did nobody mention that the SOF applies because it was a contract for conveyance of real property? And parking wasnt included as an essential term of the contract. Kinda makes it hard to argue fraud based on something that wasnt even in the contract and only resulted in $50/month in consequential damages.

This is a good point, but I think you could argue that the $50/month is a foreseeable consequential damage (or maybe even incidental?). But you are right, PER might prevent this part of the negotiation from being litigated.

Yup, I said PER probably precludes this from being a "material misrepresentation" that allows for recission from the contract or damages based on the contract transaction.

[SUPERFEVER]

Long time listener, first time caller...

Not saying this is correct, but this was my outline for #2:

Keeping in mind that the call of the question asked (1) if buyer was likely to succeed on her claim and (2) what remedies buyer had.

-Choice of law (quick)
-Formation (very quick)
-Fraud (as a defect in formation)
-Misrepresentation (as a defect) +Non-disclosure counting as a misrepresentation.
-Parol EV: because his comments about parking were oral and contemporaneous with the K.
-Fraud and Misrep as exceptions to Parole EV, because they're defects in formation.
-Short damages discussion re: her elective improvements that weren't needed because of any seller conduct.
-Restitution of Money
-Inadequate legal remedy (potentially because it's real estate)
-Recission
-Reformation (no)

[rcharter1978]

Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much

Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!

[RickSanchez]

Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much

Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!

Seriously, if they do that tomorrow I am just walking out (not really)

[RickSanchez]

Long time listener, first time caller...

Not saying this is correct, but this was my outline for #2:

Keeping in mind that the call of the question asked (1) if buyer was likely to succeed on her claim and (2) what remedies buyer had.

-Choice of law (quick)
-Formation (very quick)
-Fraud (as a defect in formation)
-Misrepresentation (as a defect) +Non-disclosure counting as a misrepresentation.
-Parol EV: because his comments about parking were oral and contemporaneous with the K.
-Fraud and Misrep as exceptions to Parole EV, because they're defects in formation.
-Short damages discussion re: her elective improvements that weren't needed because of any seller conduct.
-Restitution of Money
-Inadequate legal remedy (potentially because it's real estate)
-Recission
-Reformation (no)

Looks solid. I think I spent more time on different remedies but forgot about PER and to actually mention "rescission" even though talked about reliance damage a lot (which would be based on rescission)

[Penelopesharp]

Long time listener, first time caller...

Not saying this is correct, but this was my outline for #2:

Keeping in mind that the call of the question asked (1) if buyer was likely to succeed on her claim and (2) what remedies buyer had.

-Choice of law (quick)
-Formation (very quick)
-Fraud (as a defect in formation)
-Misrepresentation (as a defect) +Non-disclosure counting as a misrepresentation.
-Parol EV: because his comments about parking were oral and contemporaneous with the K.
-Fraud and Misrep as exceptions to Parole EV, because they're defects in formation.
-Short damages discussion re: her elective improvements that weren't needed because of any seller conduct.
-Restitution of Money
-Inadequate legal remedy (potentially because it's real estate)
-Recission
-Reformation (no)

Sounds like you pretty much nailed it. I think I managed to hit all the issues and remedies, but my analysis was a bit crap.

[Penelopesharp]

Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much

Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!

I thought the MBE day was way more hell than day 1. Not getting into specifics obviously, but didnt you guys notice the absence of multiple questions based on one fact pattern?

So many long fact patterns to analyze for each little question. Brutal. Just Brutal.

[RickSanchez]

Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much

Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!

I thought the MBE day was way more hell than day 1. Not getting into specifics obviously, but didnt you guys notice the absence of multiple questions based on one fact pattern?

So many long fact patterns to analyze for each little question. Brutal. Just Brutal.

Yeah... as I review for tomorrow, I am find myself face palming about all the stupid choices I made today. But as is usually the case, you remember your mistakes more vividly than your success.

[Rap Genius]

Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much

Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!

I thought the MBE day was way more hell than day 1. Not getting into specifics obviously, but didnt you guys notice the absence of multiple questions based on one fact pattern?

So many long fact patterns to analyze for each little question. Brutal. Just Brutal.

Not sure what you mean, but I did notice a few super long fact patterns. These were ones I started reading, hit the second paragraph and saw new ideas being presented, hit the third paragraph and saw yet new developments, thought about what I'm going to have for dinner... selected an answer and then moved on. There were two like this that I felt I wasted time on.

[unclepete]

Alright so definitely think I`ll be making up for a 50-55 for Essay 2, after reading this thread.

So, on that note, what are people's BA/Corporations predictions? Do we think SEC is in play? Obviously everything is, but I'd like to give a proper amount of time to it.

[RickSanchez]

Alright so definitely think I`ll be making up for a 50-55 for Essay 2, after reading this thread.

So, on that note, what are people's BA/Corporations predictions? Do we think SEC is in play? Obviously everything is, but I'd like to give a proper amount of time to it.

Personally studying PR/BA together + Crim Law/Procedure + Civ Pro

Going to spend some time on con law and real property after.

I feel like that remedy question was a hybrid of tort/contract so I am guessing those are covered already, but who knows.

[elijah54594]

Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much

*Buuuugh* Morty, quit focusing on the damn mortgage, ok? It's an alternative universe Morty. You can't control it. *buuuuggggh* I mean it's like you think this shit is objective

[Distancebro23]

Prediction I believe tomorrow 3 plus 2 wild cards

As stated biz org (either a federal securities or partnership agency)

PR standalone

Civ Pro- pleadings or collateral estoppel res Judi against

Criminal law (murder, accomplice , conspiracy) and crim pro (6th amendment)

Torts-products liablity



quote="unclepete"]Alright so definitely think I`ll be making up for a 50-55 for Essay 2, after reading this thread.

So, on that note, what are people's BA/Corporations predictions? Do we think SEC is in play? Obviously everything is, but I'd like to give a proper amount of time to it.[/quote]

This is the thread for discussing the administration of the California Bar Exam (CBX) or General Bar Exam (GBX) occurring in February, 2017.

The upcoming exam is special because it will be the last time the three-day format will be offered before the switch to the two-day format, unless policy changes again.

The statistics for 2016 July exam: 43% (third-lowest July pass rate on record, with the trend getting worse)
Summary of pass rates: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/4/docu ... 201607.pdf
STATE BAR ANNOUNCES RESULTS FOR JULY 2016 CALIFORNIA BAR EXAMINATION: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/AboutUs/News/T ... 01645.aspx

Previous threads that may be helpful, in reverse chronological order
2016 July: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=260090
2016 February: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=260833
2015 July: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=244425
2015 February: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=240022
2014 July: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=225140
2014 February: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=220409
2013 July: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=213457

Some potentially helpful resources in the next post.

[LockBox]

Oh my God I hate mortgage questions so so much

Oh yeah, I pretty much resolved to give those a once over, and just bubble in B if I couldn't get it quick enough.

I almost had a heart attack on your behalf thinking they gave you a mortgage essay question!

I thought the MBE day was way more hell than day 1. Not getting into specifics obviously, but didnt you guys notice the absence of multiple questions based on one fact pattern?

So many long fact patterns to analyze for each little question. Brutal. Just Brutal.

If I understand you correctly, the practice of having multiple questions based on one fact pattern was discontinued several years ago, I believe. So yes, it is more of a hellish day because reading comp plays that much of a bigger role. Good luck today!

[ledv]

I feel sick.

[RickSanchez]

Almost over

[Penelopesharp]

Well, wasn't that a FUN morning?! Home stretch guys. Almost over!

[sittin_pretty]

We did it!!!!!!!
We just took the California bar exam!!!!!

The Pasadena testing room burst out into a big cheer at the end. Did that happen everywhere?

HAPPY THING #1: WE DON'T HAVE TO STUDY TONIGHT!
HAPPY THING #2: THEY DIDN'T TEST PROPERTY LAW!
HAPPY THING #3: IT'S OVER!

[RickSanchez]

HAPPY THING #2: THEY DIDN'T TEST PROPERTY LAW!

Pretty much the best thing that happened to me this year

[MMCheung]

I know I'm being a little obsessive here since I am free but still thinking about the bar. But can't get the last PT out of mind bc.... did we need to craft, prove, and apply the rule using the cases we were given??? I haven't encountered that type of exercise before on any practice PTs I've done. Anyway... that's what I did!

[MMCheung]

We did it!!!!!!!
We just took the California bar exam!!!!!

The Pasadena testing room burst out into a big cheer at the end. Did that happen everywhere?

HAPPY THING #1: WE DON'T HAVE TO STUDY TONIGHT!
HAPPY THING #2: THEY DIDN'T TEST PROPERTY LAW!
HAPPY THING #3: IT'S OVER!

YAY! I was at Pasadena too, and I was hoping we would have a fun group, and we did!