BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[BVest]

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...

You're not misstating, but I can't imagine we'll have to distinguish between general and specific jx since the courts frequently can't and since personal jx or no personal jx is all that really matters.

[The Greyest Goose]

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.

Yep. I must be losing it that's my set 5/18 also, no clue what number the beneficial easement one was.

[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...

You're not misstating, but I can't imagine we'll have to distinguish between general and specific jx since the courts frequently can't and since personal jx or no personal jx is all that really matters.

If we have to do a PJ analysis on an essay, I'd prefer to be able to differentiate between the two and discuss the relevance (or lack thereof) of the claim's relatedness to their contacts with the forum state. If they have systematic and continuous contacts with a state, but are neither incorporated nor have their nerve center in that state, then this discrepancy between what I know and what Barbri is teaching is going to be an issue.

That said, this is probably the least of my concerns. I don't know my ass from my elbow when it comes to wills & trusts or community property and my essays in all subjects could generously be described as "mediocre."

[BVest]

Ah. Texas won't have it in an essay. The closest I'll come is the Texas Civ Pro short answers where I'll have to say what D must file if he wants to contest PJ.

[brotherdarkness]

Ah. Texas won't have it in an essay. The closest I'll come is the Texas Civ Pro short answers where I'll have to say what D must file if he wants to contest PJ.

Short answer? Is that this MEE thing I see people talking about?

I actually really enjoy PJ and would love to get an essay with PJ as a main issue, so this is bugging me. Freer said to call rather than email him. I never thought I'd call, but...

[musicfor18]

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.

You guys are too funny. There's only one Set 5/Question 18, and still no one has quoted the right question. It begins with "A landowner needed money."

[Tiago Splitter]

BD I'm with you. But if you follow the Barbri prompt I think you'll be fine. Just talk about contacts, then relatedness, then fairness. I seriously doubt there will be an essay prompt where the court has general jurisdiction because that makes the rest of the question too easy. But a quick discussion of specific vs. general in the relatedness section should snag you some free points.

[musicfor18]

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...

You're not misstating, but I can't imagine we'll have to distinguish between general and specific jx since the courts frequently can't and since personal jx or no personal jx is all that really matters.

Except that, if the claim doesn't arise out of D's contacts with the forum state, then you'll have to analyze general PJ.

[gobias_inc]

Alright, so I'm just trying to get a feel for where I stand;

I'm hitting around 68-70% on the 50 Question mixed sets; got about a 60 on the MBE refresher. I'm in a state that's 50%MBE with 25/25 MPT & MEE, but the passing score is a 284. I'm starting to freak out a bit, since most of my Essay scores seem to be in the mid to low 3 range, with a few exceptions jumping into 5-6 territory on some topics I know cold (evidence in particular).

[Neff]

Alright, so I'm just trying to get a feel for where I stand;

I'm hitting around 68-70% on the 50 Question mixed sets; got about a 60 on the MBE refresher. I'm in a state that's 50%MBE with 25/25 MPT & MEE, but the passing score is a 284. I'm starting to freak out a bit, since most of my Essay scores seem to be in the mid to low 3 range, with a few exceptions jumping into 5-6 territory on some topics I know cold (evidence in particular).

Pass by a WIDE margin. WIth those %s you are going to destroy the real MBE (average of 70% translates to at least 80% on the real thing, which is a godlike score). Just focus on essays in the remaining time, but as it stands you are already home safe even if you bomb essays.

[plurilingue]

In Real Property Set 6, I missed question 13, which I thought was a bit unfair since it was never explicitly stated that the conveyance to the mining company was for value. The explanation to the question states that the mining company was a BFP, but how was one to know this?

Also, I took the MBE Refresher and scored 62/100 (with 45 minutes remaining). I only got 4/14 Con Law questions correct! Did anyone else find CL especially difficult?

[BVest]

You guys are too funny. There's only one Set 5/Question 18, and still no one has quoted the right question. It begins with "A landowner needed money."

Aha. I was thinking the 18th question when you do problem set 5. But you're talking about the number that comes up at the top. (For me that question comes up in the middle of that problem set).

[+] Spoiler

That question was entirely about an educated guess. It was a "which helps the least" and is best answered using Guzman's style of reversing the question and answering which of these help out the landowner's position. The landowner did take the place of the neighbor and was subrogated to the neighbor's claim, and the buyer and finance company would have been unjustly enriched, so A, B, and C all seem to support the landowner's position. That said, it seems crazy to pick answer D, because D is a commercial paper answer on a property question.

I guess the point Barbri is trying to get across is that in a "which is the worst answer" situation, you can have a right answer be about a separate area of law. Personally, it just kind of pisses me off when they do that and I can't imagine NCBE having that kind of thing in there, but what do I know.

[BVest]

In Real Property Set 6, I missed question 13, which I thought was a bit unfair since it was never explicitly stated that the conveyance to the mining company was for value. The explanation to the question states that the mining company was a BFP, but how was one to know this?

What annoyed me about that was the way it talked about the minerals and surface.

[+] Spoiler

There was a severance, so the sister's estate is not subject to the mineral rights of the utility. Rather the sister has a fee simple in the surface estate and the utility company has a fee simple in the mineral estate. (It's also possible the utility co only had a fee simple determinable -- they didn't specify whether "conveyed ... the mineral rights" meant landowner sold them or leased them such as in an ownership-in-place jurisdiction. But even if he only leased them, the landowner himself would hold the reversion, not the sister, because he only conveyed to her a surface interest).

[plurilingue]

What annoyed me about that was the way it talked about the minerals and surface.

I really appreciate this answer, but it's about question 14, which I also found tricky but got correct. (Question 13 was actually the only one I missed and I thought it was incredibly unfair...)

[kyle010723]

I really appreciate this answer, but it's about question 14, which I also found tricky but got correct. (Question 13 was actually the only one I missed and I thought it was incredibly unfair...)

You only missed one question on Property MPQ6...?

[BVest]

I really appreciate this answer, but it's about question 14, which I also found tricky but got correct. (Question 13 was actually the only one I missed and I thought it was incredibly unfair...)

You only missed one question on Property MPQ6...?

Yeah... only one?

And sorry, I forgot there were two mineral questions. I got that one. I guess I just assumed since the transferee was a company that it was a sale for value.

[Kage3212]

Having some serious doubts on my ability to perform on my states PT. Any tricks or tips people use to get through these things faster? Should we just be pulling distinct aspects of law out of like the two cases given, and then merely use those in our application (along with that statutes and what not). My legal writing has always been to create rule-proofs of sorts based on the cases and analogize and distinguish circumstances. It doesnt seem like that is the case here. Worked through about 6-7 of these today and just could not seem to finish them in time/have what I would perceive to be a passing answer.

[ArmyOfficer]

I only got 4/14 Con Law questions correct! Did anyone else find CL especially difficult?

Yes. This is usually my best subject. I usually hit 80-90%, but got a very disappointing 7/14.

[mrs_featherbottom]

Having some serious doubts on my ability to perform on my states PT. Any tricks or tips people use to get through these things faster? Should we just be pulling distinct aspects of law out of like the two cases given, and then merely use those in our application (along with that statutes and what not). My legal writing has always been to create rule-proofs of sorts based on the cases and analogize and distinguish circumstances. It doesnt seem like that is the case here. Worked through about 6-7 of these today and just could not seem to finish them in time/have what I would perceive to be a passing answer.

My strategy is to read the memo first, quickly write down the format/some headings, go to the library and basically write down the statutes/rule statements under the appropriate heading, then go back to the file and match up the facts with the law I have on my sheet. I find if you keep organized w/citations and actual quotes from the law, the writing part goes very quickly. I've only done about 4 though so take my advice with a grain of salt

[mamalova]

Hi,

Super precise evidence question: Can you use statements contained in scientific treatises (established as reliable authority) as substantive evidence when questioning your own expert on direct? Or is it limited to cross examination of an opposing expert?

Thx!

[Danger Zone]

Hi,

Super precise evidence question: Can you use statements contained in scientific treatises (established as reliable authority) as substantive evidence when questioning your own expert on direct? Or is it limited to cross examination of an opposing expert?

Thx!

Let's look at the FRE

(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:

(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and

(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.

If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.

So, yes, you can use it as substantive evidence, so long as you lay the necessary foundation.

[mamalova]

Hi,

Super precise evidence question: Can you use statements contained in scientific treatises (established as reliable authority) as substantive evidence when questioning your own expert on direct? Or is it limited to cross examination of an opposing expert?

Thx!

Let's look at the FRE

(18) Statements in Learned Treatises, Periodicals, or Pamphlets. A statement contained in a treatise, periodical, or pamphlet if:

(A) the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied on by the expert on direct examination; and

(B) the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert’s admission or testimony, by another expert’s testimony, or by judicial notice.

If admitted, the statement may be read into evidence but not received as an exhibit.

So, yes, you can use it as substantive evidence, so long as you lay the necessary foundation.

Thank you!

Other question that has to do with the business record exception. i looked at the FRE but it doesn't help much as its not very detailed.

Let's say there is an traffic incident and a cop comes along. He takes the deposition of a witness who makes a statement under excited utterance. Does that fall under the business record exception even though the business record does not consist of a matter within the personal knowledge of the entrant or of someone with a duty (another cop) to transmit such matter to the entrant (the cop)?

Edit: That would be a situation of hearsay within hearsay. first statement falls under a hearsay exception. But I wonder if the second statement (the deposition taken in writing) falls under a hearsay exception as well because of the fact that the first statement falls under an exception to hearsay? that could matter when the cop himself is not available to testify and so cannot testify as to what the witness told him under excited utterance.

[charlesxavier]

I had a random thought today when I was going through my hourly pep talk. Do you think that the strongest indicator for failing the bar is being in the bottom quartile on the MBE regardless of how weighted it is?

I know some people are just terrible multiple choice takers, but I have a hard time believing that a lot of people can counter well below average MBE scores with the ability to write above average essays.

[Andrews989]

The simulated MBE score still say they are based on the results of more than 15,000 students (it changed last week from 10,000 to 15,00). In the simulated MBE review, Guzman kept mentioning the results/answer choices from last year and saying they were based on 30,000 students. Are Barbri's numbers down this year?

[Poopface]

In Real Property Set 6, I missed question 13, which I thought was a bit unfair since it was never explicitly stated that the conveyance to the mining company was for value. The explanation to the question states that the mining company was a BFP, but how was one to know this?

Also, I took the MBE Refresher and scored 62/100 (with 45 minutes remaining). I only got 4/14 Con Law questions correct! Did anyone else find CL especially difficult?

yea con law was my worst subject on the refresher, got 7/14 which i was surprised at bc con law qs are usually pretty easy. 76/100 overall