BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[Danger Zone]

So does NJ do everything Wednesday/Thursday?

Yeah. You can choose where you want to take the MBE on Wednesday since both states have the MBE that day.

[musicfor18]

Just got brutalized by Property MPQ Set 5. Got 7/18. Did anyone else score lower than the "target"?

[dwyf]

Questions for writing essays in NY (but probably everywhere): when the issue is how a court should rule on a motion for summary judgment, is there any throw away line I need to put in about when/how a court should rule on a motion for summary judgment?

The question is inevitably about something else (eg whether something constituted a trespass), but I feel like I need to throw in a throat clear about not material facts being in dispute, etc. The barbri model answers tend to blow past this. Should I just follow their lead?

[dwyf]

Just got brutalized by Property MPQ Set 5. Got 7/18. Did anyone else score lower than the "target"?

I made the mistake of trying this one. I quit after getting like 5 of the first seven wrong. I wasn't very focused while doing them - but they were shitty.

[dwyf]

My apologies if this has been covered - but how many points do I get to add when I make up law on on an essay and apply it well?

[mr.hands]

Just got brutalized by Property MPQ Set 5. Got 7/18. Did anyone else score lower than the "target"?

I made the mistake of trying this one. I quit after getting like 5 of the first seven wrong. I wasn't very focused while doing them - but they were shitty.

Yep, I got 6 right. I basically got pissed and gave up after missing them over and over and over.

[3|ink]

My apologies if this has been covered - but how many points do I get to add when I make up law on on an essay and apply it well?

Exactly 2. No more. No less.

[3|ink]

Just got brutalized by Property MPQ Set 5. Got 7/18. Did anyone else score lower than the "target"?

I made the mistake of trying this one. I quit after getting like 5 of the first seven wrong. I wasn't very focused while doing them - but they were shitty.

Yep, I got 6 right. I basically got pissed and gave up after missing them over and over and over.

6/18 here. And I did it after carefully reading my outline and the baroutlines.com outline. It was just more of the same old "testing things we probably don't need to know" routine.

[musicfor18]

Just got brutalized by Property MPQ Set 5. Got 7/18. Did anyone else score lower than the "target"?

I made the mistake of trying this one. I quit after getting like 5 of the first seven wrong. I wasn't very focused while doing them - but they were shitty.

Yep, I got 6 right. I basically got pissed and gave up after missing them over and over and over.

6/18 here. And I did it after carefully reading my outline and the baroutlines.com outline. It was just more of the same old "testing things we probably don't need to know" routine.

For a few of them, I read the answer explanations and still had no idea what they were about. Can anyone explain question 18?

[ladylawyer1221]

Just thought I'd throw this out there for anyone who has been struggling HARDCORE to keep it together this weekend:

http://motion4sanctions.tumblr.com/post ... e-bar-exam

You're welcome.

[musicfor18]

Just thought I'd throw this out there for anyone who has been struggling HARDCORE to keep it together this weekend:

http://motion4sanctions.tumblr.com/post ... e-bar-exam

You're welcome.

Hilarious, but what is this subcontractor estimate stuff?

[dwyf]

Just thought I'd throw this out there for anyone who has been struggling HARDCORE to keep it together this weekend:

http://motion4sanctions.tumblr.com/post ... e-bar-exam

You're welcome.

Hilarious, but what is this subcontractor estimate stuff?

It's a common setup for contracts where a sub gets his estimate wrong, and it turns on things like whether the contractor should have known the submission had a mistake in it, if he did know and accepted it anyway, who is liable for what, etc.

[musicfor18]

Just thought I'd throw this out there for anyone who has been struggling HARDCORE to keep it together this weekend:

http://motion4sanctions.tumblr.com/post ... e-bar-exam

You're welcome.

Hilarious, but what is this subcontractor estimate stuff?

It's a common setup for contracts where a sub gets his estimate wrong, and it turns on things like whether the contractor should have known the submission had a mistake in it, if he did know and accepted it anyway, who is liable for what, etc.

Unilateral mistake?

[dwyf]

Just thought I'd throw this out there for anyone who has been struggling HARDCORE to keep it together this weekend:

http://motion4sanctions.tumblr.com/post ... e-bar-exam

You're welcome.

Hilarious, but what is this subcontractor estimate stuff?

It's a common setup for contracts where a sub gets his estimate wrong, and it turns on things like whether the contractor should have known the submission had a mistake in it, if he did know and accepted it anyway, who is liable for what, etc.

Unilateral mistake?

O right, after eight weeks of studying this garbage I should know names for things. Oops

[BVest]

Can anyone tell me why Question 54 on the MBE refresher claims that the corporation is a resident wherever there's personal jurisdiction? Unless I'm missing something, there's clearly a proper venue where the accident occurred (Southern District of State A), so they shouldn't look to personal jurisdiction to establish venue.

You're right that there is proper venue where the accident occurred (the correct answer includes SD of State A), but that's not the only place that venue is proper. The venue rule isn't conditional (well, it is conditional, but only at the end. The first part of the statute (28 USC § 1391(b)) is:

A civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
[OR]
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated;

So either of those two options, if they exist, are proper venues. If neither of those exist, only then do you get to the conditional part of venue:

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

Finally, it's important to note that the statute refers to residence, not citizenship. A corporation is only a citizen of the state(s) in which it is incorporated and the state in which it has its principal office. But a corporation (or non-corporate entity) as a defendant resides anywhere there is personal jurisdiction over the corporation for the purpose of the lawsuit (§1391(c)). That includes where it is a citizen plus anywhere else it has continuous and systematic contacts (general jurisdiction) to the extent where it is at home in the state.

[musicfor18]

Can anyone tell me why Question 54 on the MBE refresher claims that the corporation is a resident wherever there's personal jurisdiction? Unless I'm missing something, there's clearly a proper venue where the accident occurred (Southern District of State A), so they shouldn't look to personal jurisdiction to establish venue.

You're right that there is proper venue where the accident occurred (the correct answer includes SD of State A), but that's not the only place that venue is proper. The venue rule isn't conditional (well, it is conditional, but only at the end. The first part of the statute (28 USC § 1391(b)) is:

A civil action may be brought in—
(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
[OR]
(2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated;

So either of those two options, if they exist, are proper venues. If neither of those exist, only then do you get to the conditional part of venue:

(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.

Finally, it's important to note that the statute refers to residence, not citizenship. A corporation is only a citizen of the state(s) in which it is incorporated and the state in which it has its principal office. But a corporation (or non-corporate entity) as a defendant resides anywhere there is personal jurisdiction over the corporation for the purpose of the lawsuit (§1391(c)). That includes where it is a citizen plus anywhere else it has continuous and systematic contacts (general jurisdiction) to the extent where it is at home in the state.

I don't think this is quite right. For venue purposes, a business entity, whether incorporated or unincorporated, "resides" in any judicial district in which it's subject to personal jurisdiction in the lawsuit in question. It does not have to be general jurisdiction. To the OP, the explanation is that we're not going to the fallback provision (I.e., if there's no district it venue, then any district where there's PJ). Instead, when the D is a corporation, it "resides" in every district where it's subject to PJ for this action

[The Greyest Goose]

Just got brutalized by Property MPQ Set 5. Got 7/18. Did anyone else score lower than the "target"?

I made the mistake of trying this one. I quit after getting like 5 of the first seven wrong. I wasn't very focused while doing them - but they were shitty.

Yep, I got 6 right. I basically got pissed and gave up after missing them over and over and over.

6/18 here. And I did it after carefully reading my outline and the baroutlines.com outline. It was just more of the same old "testing things we probably don't need to know" routine.

For a few of them, I read the answer explanations and still had no idea what they were about. Can anyone explain question 18?

The MD sold the hotel before his ability to do so was revoked, and the Hotel recorded before the CEO made the contract with the amusement park. So the Hotel's interest is valid and at the time the Amusement Park bought, it could have done a records check and realized the Hotel owned the land.

[BVest]

I don't think this is quite right. For venue purposes, a business entity, whether incorporated or unincorporated, "resides" in any judicial district in which it's subject to personal jurisdiction in the lawsuit in question. It does not have to be general jurisdiction. To the OP, the explanation is that we're not going to the fallback provision (I.e., if there's no district it venue, then any district where there's PJ). Instead, when the D is a corporation, it "resides" in every district where it's subject to PJ for this action

You're right. I said that ("for the purpose of the lawsuit") but then stopped talking after I mentioned general jurisdiction. Mainly that was because I'd run on too long already and the MBE question he was asking about established residence through General Jx rather than Specific Jx. To be fair to me, I said "this [personal jx for the purpose of the lawsuit] includes" anywhere there are continuous and systematic contacts.

[musicfor18]

Just got brutalized by Property MPQ Set 5. Got 7/18. Did anyone else score lower than the "target"?

I made the mistake of trying this one. I quit after getting like 5 of the first seven wrong. I wasn't very focused while doing them - but they were shitty.

Yep, I got 6 right. I basically got pissed and gave up after missing them over and over and over.

6/18 here. And I did it after carefully reading my outline and the baroutlines.com outline. It was just more of the same old "testing things we probably don't need to know" routine.

For a few of them, I read the answer explanations and still had no idea what they were about. Can anyone explain question 18?

The MD sold the hotel before his ability to do so was revoked, and the Hotel recorded before the CEO made the contract with the amusement park. So the Hotel's interest is valid and at the time the Amusement Park bought, it could have done a records check and realized the Hotel owned the land.

Is this Set 5, Question 18?

[BVest]

[Hotel/CEO question]

Is this Set 5, Question 18?

No, that was set 6.

[The Greyest Goose]

Just got brutalized by Property MPQ Set 5. Got 7/18. Did anyone else score lower than the "target"?

I made the mistake of trying this one. I quit after getting like 5 of the first seven wrong. I wasn't very focused while doing them - but they were shitty.

Yep, I got 6 right. I basically got pissed and gave up after missing them over and over and over.

6/18 here. And I did it after carefully reading my outline and the baroutlines.com outline. It was just more of the same old "testing things we probably don't need to know" routine.

For a few of them, I read the answer explanations and still had no idea what they were about. Can anyone explain question 18?

The MD sold the hotel before his ability to do so was revoked, and the Hotel recorded before the CEO made the contract with the amusement park. So the Hotel's interest is valid and at the time the Amusement Park bought, it could have done a records check and realized the Hotel owned the land.

Is this Set 5, Question 18?

Oh no, set 6. For set 5 Q18 it's a beneficial easement. If it's known then that doesn't affect marketability and so the seller has grounds to sue the buyer for not performing.

[musicfor18]

I don't think this is quite right. For venue purposes, a business entity, whether incorporated or unincorporated, "resides" in any judicial district in which it's subject to personal jurisdiction in the lawsuit in question. It does not have to be general jurisdiction. To the OP, the explanation is that we're not going to the fallback provision (I.e., if there's no district it venue, then any district where there's PJ). Instead, when the D is a corporation, it "resides" in every district where it's subject to PJ for this action

You're right. I said that ("for the purpose of the lawsuit") but then stopped talking after I mentioned general jurisdiction. Mainly that was because I'd run on too long already and the MBE question he was asking about established residence through General Jx rather than Specific Jx. To be fair to me, I said "this [personal jx for the purpose of the lawsuit] includes" anywhere there are continuous and systematic contacts.

Yes, I see that. I misunderstood. Question, though: Is the "continuous and systematic contacts" test still good law for general PJ? I thought the "at home" test essentially replaced that, and seems to be limited to the state of incorporation and PPOB, narrowing the scope of general PJ.

[BVest]

Yes, I see that. I misunderstood. Question, though: Is the "continuous and systematic contacts" test still good law for general PJ? I thought the "at home" test essentially replaced that, and seems to be limited to the state of incorporation and PPOB, narrowing the scope of general PJ.

You may be right that it's been replaced. When we learned it, we learned "at home" as being a clarification (goodyear, IIRC). As in "what when are contacts 'continuous and systematic?" "When the defendant would feel 'at home' in the forum state."

[brotherdarkness]

When I learned PJ as a 1L, I distinctly remember learning that a corp was subject to general PJ in any state in which they had "systematic and continuous" contacts. Barbri appears to be teaching it differently: specific PJ where they have contacts (whether minimum or systematic and continuous) and general where they're at home (state of incorporation and state of nerve center).

Not sure if I'm interpreting Barbri wrong or just misstating the rules...

[BVest]

Oh no, set 6. For set 5 Q18 it's a beneficial easement. If it's known then that doesn't affect marketability and so the seller has grounds to sue the buyer for not performing.

My question 5/18 was an RAP question:

"To my son for life, then to his widow, then to his children."

[+] Spoiler

They want you to think it's an RAP issue, and I fell for it. But both the widow and the children will vest (if at all) within 21 years of the son's life, so the son is your "life in being."

Upon the transfer, son has a LE, and the father has a reversion.

As soon as the son marries, his wife has a vested contingent remainder in LE (she must outlive the son), and the father still has a reversion.

Once the son has kids (which has to happen during his lifetime or 9 months after), son's wife still has vested contingent remainder in LE, and the kids have vested remainder in FS subject to open (because he can have more kids). Because the kids remainder is vested from the outset, the birth of the first child cuts off the father's reversion. And, even if the father had already died and left his estate (including the reversion) to his friend, the reversion would still be cut off on the birth of the first child.

When the son dies (well, 9 months later), the class (son's children) closes, and their remainder is simply vested.

But the RAP point is that the son's children "will have vested, if at all, during the son's life in being plus 21 years" because they vested immediately upon birth and they can't have been born 21 years after the son died. Therefore, their interest is not in violation of the RAP.