July 2015 California Bar Exam Forum

[lameslice57]

Do the PR essays test both the Model Rules and California Rules?

[brotherdarkness]

[Wall of text]

Although I understand what you say, I think you got it wrong. As the explanatory answer says, to satisfy the "touch and concern the land" requirement, a restriction has to make the land more useful or valuable, here it makes the land less valuable since it's bound to use only one company.

Further, D is wrong because even if there were no privity the equitable servitude would still run. Thus, as implausible as A may seem, it's the only answer that would provide for judgment for the woman.

Unrelated question: When is the deadline to register our laptops / download Examsoft (or whatever program we have to use)? After surviving law school without issue, my MB Air has started crashing on a daily basis and I'm considering using a different laptop for the exam. Not sure when I need to resolve this issue by, though...

[robinhoodOO]

Do the PR essays test both the Model Rules and California Rules?

More often than not, they appear to test both. The typical prompt is to discuss any violations of professional conducting, noting any ABA and CA differences.

[robinhoodOO]

[Wall of text]

Although I understand what you say, I think you got it wrong. As the explanatory answer says, to satisfy the "touch and concern the land" requirement, a restriction has to make the land more useful or valuable, here it makes the land less valuable since it's bound to use only one company.

Further, D is wrong because even if there were no privity the equitable servitude would still run. Thus, as implausible as A may seem, it's the only answer that would provide for judgment for the woman.

Unrelated question: When is the deadline to register our laptops / download Examsoft (or whatever program we have to use)? After surviving law school without issue, my MB Air has started crashing on a daily basis and I'm considering using a different laptop for the exam. Not sure when I need to resolve this issue by, though...

Wait, you haven't registered your laptop yet??? Shit dude, you're screwed...

KIDDING! Certification deadline is Friday, July 24. You'll need to have printed your admittance ticket. Here's a link to the PDF with all the info you need: http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... 0715_R.pdf

[BuenAbogado]

If a horse crosses over a fence that fell due to a storm and tramples the neighbor's flowers, is the owner of the horse liable?

Before you consider that a horse is a wild animal, be aware that there may be some exception where farm animals are not. There is way too much conflicting info online, so I'm wondering if anyone knows this by any chance.

Also, will remedies be tested again on the essays? Don't answer unless you know for sure.

Thanks in advance.

[robinhoodOO]

If a horse crosses over a fence that fell due to a storm and tramples the neighbor's flowers, is the owner of the horse liable?

Before you consider that a horse is a wild animal, be aware that there may be some exception where farm animals are not. There is way too much conflicting info online, so I'm wondering if anyone knows this by any chance.

Also, will remedies be tested again on the essays? Don't answer unless you know for sure.

Thanks in advance.

As to the question, I feel like there would be more information in the Q to be able to answer it properly. (i.e. Whether the owner was aware of the damage to the fence). Nevertheless, farm animals are traditionally considered domestic animals and, thus, there is no strict liability. I believe the common exception is whether owner has knowledge of a domestic animal's violent propensity, which doesn't seem to be an issue here. Thus, unless some independent basis for negligence exists, there is no liability.

As to remedies, you'll always want to know remedies. Always. This should be obvious...

[redblueyellow]

Although I understand what you say, I think you got it wrong. As the explanatory answer says, to satisfy the "touch and concern the land" requirement, a restriction has to make the land more useful or valuable, here it makes the land less valuable since it's bound to use only one company.

Hang on, I remember from class that touch and concern could either be a positive or negative thing. In other words, anything that has a measurable impact on the land, would count as touching or concerning it.

Am I mistaken? Touch and concern only refers to something that makes the land more useful or valuable? By default, wouldn't a covenant or equitable servitude make the land less valuable for at least one party to the transaction?

[robinhoodOO]

Although I understand what you say, I think you got it wrong. As the explanatory answer says, to satisfy the "touch and concern the land" requirement, a restriction has to make the land more useful or valuable, here it makes the land less valuable since it's bound to use only one company.

Hang on, I remember from class that touch and concern could either be a positive or negative thing. In other words, anything that has a measurable impact on the land, would count as touching or concerning it.

Am I mistaken? Touch and concern only refers to something that makes the land more useful or valuable? By default, wouldn't a covenant or equitable servitude make the land less valuable for at least one party to the transaction?

No, you're absolutely right. Any impact ON THE LAND (as opposed to something independent/personal) It touches and concerns the servient estate when the covenant reduces use and enjoyment of the servient estate. Alternatively, it touches and concerns the dominant estate when it enhances the use of enjoyment of the dominant estate.

As to applicability to the Q, a mere promise is distinguished from a covenant that runs with the land.

For example: Neighbor owns and resides in House A and sells House B. He includes a restriction in the deed whereby Buyer must promise to take out Neighbor's trash every week. Is this a promise or a covenant that runs with the land? An element is touching and concerning. Here, it only effects Buyer's personal obligations to Neighbor and has nothing inherently to do with the diminishing use and enjoyment of my property. In other words, it's just a promise that happens to be in a deed.

[redblueyellow]

No, you're absolutely right. Any impact ON THE LAND (as opposed to something independent/personal) It touches and concerns the servient estate when the covenant reduces use and enjoyment of the servient estate. Alternatively, it touches and concerns the dominant estate when it enhances the use of enjoyment of the dominant estate.

As to applicability to the Q, a mere promise is distinguished from a covenant that runs with the land.

For example: Neighbor owns and resides in House A and sells House B. He includes a restriction in the deed whereby Buyer must promise to take out Neighbor's trash every week. Is this a promise or a covenant that runs with the land? An element is touching and concerning. Here, it only effects Buyer's personal obligations to Neighbor and has nothing inherently to do with the diminishing use and enjoyment of my property. In other words, it's just a promise that happens to be in a deed.

Hmm, looks like my understanding of the question partially hinges on the line " Included in the deed to each unit was a covenant under which the grantee's "heirs and assigns" agreed to purchase electrical power only from a plant the realty company promised to build and maintain within the development."

You're saying that this line indicates a promise, rather than a covenant?

If so, I suppose I can understand why A is correct, but if not, I'm still confused

[Calicakes]

QUESTION: How is the answer what it is?!

A realty company developed a residential development which included single-family dwellings, town houses,
and high-rise apartments for a total of 25,000 dwelling units. Included in the deed to each unit was a covenant
under which the grantee's "heirs and assigns" agreed to purchase electrical power only from a plant the realty
company promised to build and maintain within the development. The realty company constructed the plant
and necessary power lines. The plant did not supply power outside the development. An appropriate and fair
formula was used to determine price. 
 
After constructing and selling 12,500 of the units, the realty company sold its interest in the development to an
investor company. The investor company operated the power plant and constructed and sold the remaining
12,500 units. Each conveyance from the investor company contained the same covenant relating to electrical
power that the realty company had included in the 12,500 conveyances it had made. 
 
A woman bought a dwelling unit from a man, who had purchased it from the realty company. Subsequently,
the woman, whose lot was along the boundary of the development, ceased buying electrical power from the
investor company and began purchasing power from General Power Company, which provided such service in
the area surrounding the development. Both General Power and the investor company have governmental
authorization to provide electrical services to the area. The investor company instituted an appropriate action
against the woman to enjoin her from obtaining electrical power from General Power. If judgment is for the
woman, it will most likely be because 
 
A: the covenant does not touch and concern the land.
B: the mixture of types of residential units is viewed as preventing one common development scheme.
C: the covenant is a restraint on alienation.
D: there is no privity of estate between the woman and the investor company.
 

_______________________________________




The explanation for the answer is:
 
Answer A is correct. The realty company has attempted to impose an equitable servitude on the residents of
the subdivision. An equitable servitude in a deed is only enforceable where a party can establish: 1) intent for
the restriction to be enforceable by subsequent grantees, 2) that the subsequent grantees had notice of the
servitude, and 3) that the restriction touches and concerns the land. In this case, the facts clearly indicate that
there was an intent for the restriction to be enforceable, and that the language of the deeds put subsequent
grantees on notice. The restriction, however, does not touch and concern the land; it does not serve to make
the land more useful or valuable in any way. Therefore, the restriction will not bind the woman, and answer A
is correct. You serious? Having to buy electrical power from only one company definitely touches and concerns the land as it binds all future successors into only using that company. The company may raise rates to whatever it likes, and has a monopoly over that particular area. i was able to quickly eliminate C, and B didn't sound right so I got rid of that as well. That left A and D, and I obviously though that A definitely did apply, so I picked the only thing left, D.
 
Answer B is incorrect because mixing types of residential units does not negate the provisions of a common
development scheme. Answer C is incorrect because the attempted restriction does not purport to limit an
owner's alienation rights. Answer D is incorrect because privity is a requirement for covenants running with the
land, not equitable servitudes.

So, i see that the company seeks to enjoin( stop) her from buying power from the other company. So, is that why its an equitable servitude, because of the remedy sough? My outline( LECC) says that negative covenants which touch and concern the propery take the form of building restrictions( isnt this a restriction?), security deposits and agreements not to assign the interest in the property. So, yeah, this would seem to touch and concern the land.

[florentine]

[Wall of text]

Although I understand what you say, I think you got it wrong. As the explanatory answer says, to satisfy the "touch and concern the land" requirement, a restriction has to make the land more useful or valuable, here it makes the land less valuable since it's bound to use only one company.

Further, D is wrong because even if there were no privity the equitable servitude would still run. Thus, as implausible as A may seem, it's the only answer that would provide for judgment for the woman.

Unrelated question: When is the deadline to register our laptops / download Examsoft (or whatever program we have to use)? After surviving law school without issue, my MB Air has started crashing on a daily basis and I'm considering using a different laptop for the exam. Not sure when I need to resolve this issue by, though...

Wait, you haven't registered your laptop yet??? Shit dude, you're screwed...

KIDDING! Certification deadline is Friday, July 24. You'll need to have printed your admittance ticket. Here's a link to the PDF with all the info you need: http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... 0715_R.pdf

Just to be totally clear, certification requires: (1) Download Examsoft, (2) All four exams downloaded and mock exam, (3) Complete and submit mock exam, and (4) Certification?

[BuenAbogado]

[Wall of text]

Although I understand what you say, I think you got it wrong. As the explanatory answer says, to satisfy the "touch and concern the land" requirement, a restriction has to make the land more useful or valuable, here it makes the land less valuable since it's bound to use only one company.

Further, D is wrong because even if there were no privity the equitable servitude would still run. Thus, as implausible as A may seem, it's the only answer that would provide for judgment for the woman.

Unrelated question: When is the deadline to register our laptops / download Examsoft (or whatever program we have to use)? After surviving law school without issue, my MB Air has started crashing on a daily basis and I'm considering using a different laptop for the exam. Not sure when I need to resolve this issue by, though...

Wait, you haven't registered your laptop yet??? Shit dude, you're screwed...

KIDDING! Certification deadline is Friday, July 24. You'll need to have printed your admittance ticket. Here's a link to the PDF with all the info you need: http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals ... 0715_R.pdf

Just to be totally clear, certification requires: (1) Download Examsoft, (2) All four exams downloaded and mock exam, (3) Complete and submit mock exam, and (4) Certification?

The issue is what constitutes valid certification.

Under the California Bar Regulations, certification requires: (1) Download Examsoft, (2) All four exams downloaded and mock exam, (3) Complete and submit mock exam, and (4) Certification.

Here, all the elements have been met.

Thus, Applicant is registered for this shitty ass exam.

[redblueyellow]

The issue is what constitutes valid certification.

Under the California Bar Regulations, certification requires: (1) Download Examsoft, (2) All four exams downloaded and mock exam, (3) Complete and submit mock exam, and (4) Certification.

Here, all the elements have been met.

Thus, Applicant is registered for this shitty ass exam.

Essay grade: 55.

[BuenAbogado]

The issue is what constitutes valid certification.

Under the California Bar Regulations, certification requires: (1) Download Examsoft, (2) All four exams downloaded and mock exam, (3) Complete and submit mock exam, and (4) Certification.

Here, all the elements have been met.

Thus, Applicant is registered for this shitty ass exam.

Essay grade: 55.

I like it, no feedback whatsoever, keeping it authentic.

[robinhoodOO]

The issue is what constitutes valid certification.

Under the California Bar Regulations, certification requires: (1) Download Examsoft, (2) All four exams downloaded and mock exam, (3) Complete and submit mock exam, and (4) Certification.

Here, all the elements have been met.

Thus, Applicant is registered for this shitty ass exam.

Essay grade: 55.

I like it, no feedback whatsoever, keeping it authentic.

*Keeping it 100

[robinhoodOO]

No, you're absolutely right. Any impact ON THE LAND (as opposed to something independent/personal) It touches and concerns the servient estate when the covenant reduces use and enjoyment of the servient estate. Alternatively, it touches and concerns the dominant estate when it enhances the use of enjoyment of the dominant estate.

As to applicability to the Q, a mere promise is distinguished from a covenant that runs with the land.

For example: Neighbor owns and resides in House A and sells House B. He includes a restriction in the deed whereby Buyer must promise to take out Neighbor's trash every week. Is this a promise or a covenant that runs with the land? An element is touching and concerning. Here, it only effects Buyer's personal obligations to Neighbor and has nothing inherently to do with the diminishing use and enjoyment of my property. In other words, it's just a promise that happens to be in a deed.

Hmm, looks like my understanding of the question partially hinges on the line " Included in the deed to each unit was a covenant under which the grantee's "heirs and assigns" agreed to purchase electrical power only from a plant the realty company promised to build and maintain within the development."

You're saying that this line indicates a promise, rather than a covenant?

If so, I suppose I can understand why A is correct, but if not, I'm still confused

I'm saying it doesn't touch and concern the land; therefore, it's not a covenant that runs with the land and cannot bind future landowners. So, basically, the effect is roughly the equivalent of a promise, as opposed to a covenant.

I think you're getting caught up in the language. Think of it this way: The language doesn't dictate whether it's a covenant. For example, just because I say, "I accept your offer, but you owe me $100 extra for the service," doesn't mean there is a valid acceptance. There, the legal effect is still a counter-offer under common law even though I called and seem to believe I've accepted your offer. Same thing with a covenant. Just because I call it a covenant and I want it to bind future landowners doesn't mean it is a covenant that runs with the land. It still has to actually and legally touch and concern, which means it must inherently affect of the use and enjoyment of the land.

Lastly, you probably can make a good argument that it touches and concerns, but MBE's aren't essays. The question was: IF she wins, then why. For all we know a court would find it runs with the land, but I don't think that's what the Q is getting at at the end of the day...Just my 2 cents

[robinhoodOO]

QUESTION: How is the answer what it is?!

A realty company developed a residential development which included single-family dwellings, town houses,
and high-rise apartments for a total of 25,000 dwelling units. Included in the deed to each unit was a covenant
under which the grantee's "heirs and assigns" agreed to purchase electrical power only from a plant the realty
company promised to build and maintain within the development. The realty company constructed the plant
and necessary power lines. The plant did not supply power outside the development. An appropriate and fair
formula was used to determine price. 
 
After constructing and selling 12,500 of the units, the realty company sold its interest in the development to an
investor company. The investor company operated the power plant and constructed and sold the remaining
12,500 units. Each conveyance from the investor company contained the same covenant relating to electrical
power that the realty company had included in the 12,500 conveyances it had made. 
 
A woman bought a dwelling unit from a man, who had purchased it from the realty company. Subsequently,
the woman, whose lot was along the boundary of the development, ceased buying electrical power from the
investor company and began purchasing power from General Power Company, which provided such service in
the area surrounding the development. Both General Power and the investor company have governmental
authorization to provide electrical services to the area. The investor company instituted an appropriate action
against the woman to enjoin her from obtaining electrical power from General Power. If judgment is for the
woman, it will most likely be because 
 
A: the covenant does not touch and concern the land.
B: the mixture of types of residential units is viewed as preventing one common development scheme.
C: the covenant is a restraint on alienation.
D: there is no privity of estate between the woman and the investor company.
 

_______________________________________




The explanation for the answer is:
 
Answer A is correct. The realty company has attempted to impose an equitable servitude on the residents of
the subdivision. An equitable servitude in a deed is only enforceable where a party can establish: 1) intent for
the restriction to be enforceable by subsequent grantees, 2) that the subsequent grantees had notice of the
servitude, and 3) that the restriction touches and concerns the land. In this case, the facts clearly indicate that
there was an intent for the restriction to be enforceable, and that the language of the deeds put subsequent
grantees on notice. The restriction, however, does not touch and concern the land; it does not serve to make
the land more useful or valuable in any way. Therefore, the restriction will not bind the woman, and answer A
is correct. You serious? Having to buy electrical power from only one company definitely touches and concerns the land as it binds all future successors into only using that company. The company may raise rates to whatever it likes, and has a monopoly over that particular area. i was able to quickly eliminate C, and B didn't sound right so I got rid of that as well. That left A and D, and I obviously though that A definitely did apply, so I picked the only thing left, D.
 
Answer B is incorrect because mixing types of residential units does not negate the provisions of a common
development scheme. Answer C is incorrect because the attempted restriction does not purport to limit an
owner's alienation rights. Answer D is incorrect because privity is a requirement for covenants running with the
land, not equitable servitudes.

So, i see that the company seeks to enjoin( stop) her from buying power from the other company. So, is that why its an equitable servitude, because of the remedy sough? My outline( LECC) says that negative covenants which touch and concern the propery take the form of building restrictions( isnt this a restriction?), security deposits and agreements not to assign the interest in the property. So, yeah, this would seem to touch and concern the land.

I just want to point out one last thing before we finish this topic: Notice, the point of this Q isn't to say that the covenant doesn't touch and concern. It says, IF SHE WINS, the most likely reason would be is because... Because the most significant inquiry into whether a covenant runs with the land is whether it touches and concerns, this seems to be the best answer. It doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't touch and concern or that a good argument couldn't be made saying it does.

[redblueyellow]

I think you're getting caught up in the language. Think of it this way: The language doesn't dictate whether it's a covenant. For example, just because I say, "I accept your offer, but you owe me $100 extra for the service," doesn't mean there is a valid acceptance. There, the legal effect is still a counter-offer under common law even though I called and seem to believe I've accepted your offer. Same thing with a covenant. Just because I call it a covenant and I want it to bind future landowners doesn't mean it is a covenant that runs with the land. It still has to actually and legally touch and concern, which means it must inherently affect of the use and enjoyment of the land.

Lastly, you probably can make a good argument that it touches and concerns, but MBE's aren't essays. The question was: IF she wins, then why. For all we know a court would find it runs with the land, but I don't think that's what the Q is getting at at the end of the day...Just my 2 cents

Yes, this could be true. I guess I took it for face value when it said that we have a covenant.

And for your other post, I think that's a good point you've made. Since option A is wishy-washy at best, it would likely make the right answer choice considering what the question is asking.

[BuenAbogado]

Anybody have any good mnemonics? Hook it up.

[redblueyellow]

TIL 3 years of law school and bar prep, and I just learned that courts will go out of their way to avoid strict liability offenses and to incorporate a mental state/intent requirement. Thought the answer might be akin to negligence per se, but that literally only applies to safety statutes. I don't agree with the answer, but at least it makes sense based on their reasoning.
 
On a camping trip in a state park, a camper discovered metal signs near a rubbish heap stating, "Natural
Wildlife Area - No Hunting." She took two of the signs and used them to decorate her room at home. She is
charged with violation of a state statute which provides, "Any person who appropriates to his own use property
owned by the state shall be guilty of a crime and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by
imprisonment for not more than five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment." 
 
At trial, the camper admits taking the signs but says she believed they had been thrown away. The jury
accepts that the camper honestly believed the signs had been abandoned. However, the signs had not in fact
been abandoned. 
 
The camper should be found 
 
A: guilty, because this is a public welfare offense.
B: guilty, because she should have inquired whether the signs were abandoned.
C: not guilty because the jury found she honestly believed the signs had been abandoned.
D: not guilty because the state had not taken adequate steps to inform the public that the signs had not been
abandoned.
 
The explanation for the answer is:
 




The correct answer is C. Although there is no mental state requirement for the offense listed in the statute, one
will be presumed by the courts to avoid strict liability offenses. In larceny cases, courts will presume the statute
requires an intentional act on the part of the defendant. Because the jury found that the camper honestly
believed the signs had been abandoned, the camper will not have the presumed requisite mental state and
should be found not guilty. Larceny is generally a specific intent crime and, even if the statute does not
specifically list it, it will be presumed to require intent as the mental state. If the camper honestly believed the
signs had been abandoned, she did not have the requisite mental state to be found guilty. Answer C is
correct. 
 
Answer A is incorrect. Because the offense is punishable by imprisonment, the charge is not a public welfare
offense, and due process applies. The camper should not be convicted unless she knew the property was not
abandoned. Answer B is incorrect. The camper's failure to inquire as to the status of the signs does not
establish an intent to steal. There should be no presumption that the camper must determine whether the
property was abandoned. Answer D is incorrect. The failure of the state to take adequate steps to inform the
public about the status of the signs does not create a presumption about the camper's intent. C is the better
answer.

[redblueyellow]

Anybody have any good mnemonics? Hook it up.

There's a thread going for those already. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=249358

[robinhoodOO]

I think you're getting caught up in the language. Think of it this way: The language doesn't dictate whether it's a covenant. For example, just because I say, "I accept your offer, but you owe me $100 extra for the service," doesn't mean there is a valid acceptance. There, the legal effect is still a counter-offer under common law even though I called and seem to believe I've accepted your offer. Same thing with a covenant. Just because I call it a covenant and I want it to bind future landowners doesn't mean it is a covenant that runs with the land. It still has to actually and legally touch and concern, which means it must inherently affect of the use and enjoyment of the land.

Lastly, you probably can make a good argument that it touches and concerns, but MBE's aren't essays. The question was: IF she wins, then why. For all we know a court would find it runs with the land, but I don't think that's what the Q is getting at at the end of the day...Just my 2 cents

Yes, this could be true. I guess I took it for face value when it said that we have a covenant.

And for your other post, I think that's a good point you've made. Since option A is wishy-washy at best, it would likely make the right answer choice considering what the question is asking.

I've been known to be guilty of the same thing

[Neatrends]

What are some good links for essay strategies? For example, I'm told that if you don't know the rule that applies and you make one up and apply it, you'll get points for the application. Any other insights into the way the essays are graded that I should be keeping in mind as I develop my approach?

[a male human]

What are some good links for essay strategies? For example, I'm told that if you don't know the rule that applies and you make one up and apply it, you'll get points for the application. Any other insights into the way the essays are graded that I should be keeping in mind as I develop my approach?

You can get partial credit for BSing rules and/or application. If you miss an issue you should have identified, you get zero credit. Issues are the seeds that sprout IRACs.

Use headers and clean IRAC (for example, don't conclude ahead of time, and don't commingle rules and application). They're like street signs directing the grader what's coming up. Don't make them do the work.

[InTheWideLand I Walk]

off topic rant: its funny how when some people try to predict bar exam subjects, they think "oh in order to predict, we must see what hasnt been tested in a while", when in reality when u look at the exams it seems the majority of the issues overlap with the recent topics.

Other people try to look for "patterns" to predict. like- u really think they follow a pattern? like, "hey team, now we HAVE TO test criminal procedure this year because when i did the algorithm for calculating which exams should come up, it was crim pro."

i think the bar examiners try their best to make it LOOK like there is a pattern, and then deliberately screw with the pattern when they come up with the subjects to be tested. i wouldnt even be shocked if they look at internet post predictions and use that to their advantage.