BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[Charger]

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?

I would not be surprised about this. Anecdotally, I feel like more friends/classmates from my year chose Themis over Barbri as compared to friends/classmates who graduated last year.

[kyle010723]

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.

While I know some people will score poorly, it's also making me concerned with a lot of TLSers scoring in 150s+ on the simulation, and getting all these high percentage on the later question sets... So I guess there's really no telling where we stand

[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.

While I know some people will score poorly, it's also making me concerned with a lot of TLSers scoring in 150s+ on the simulation, and getting all these high percentage on the later question sets... So I guess there's really no telling where we stand

True, but people are a lot more willing to share their scores when they did well. I feel like 75% of the scores shared on here were in the top 25%.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

If A has an appurtenant easement to use B's land (ex. a path to cross), and B sells to C, is it correct that the easement applies to C the same as it did to B, and to end the easement C needs to follow one of the standard ways to end an easement (ex. prescriptive or purchase of A's property)?

[atticus89]

If A has an appurtenant easement to use B's land (ex. a path to cross), and B sells to C, is it correct that the easement applies to C the same as it did to B, and to end the easement C needs to follow one of the standard ways to end an easement (ex. prescriptive or purchase of A's property)?

I believe when the servient estate is sold (B), the transferee (C) takes subject to the easement UNLESS C was a bona fide purchaser (i.e. C paid consideration and took without actual, record, or inquiry notice). If C was a BFP, the easement doesn't apply to C. If C was not a BFP, the easement applies to C and can be terminated in the standard ways, as you mentioned.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

If A has an appurtenant easement to use B's land (ex. a path to cross), and B sells to C, is it correct that the easement applies to C the same as it did to B, and to end the easement C needs to follow one of the standard ways to end an easement (ex. prescriptive or purchase of A's property)?

I believe when the servient estate is sold (B), the transferee (C) takes subject to the easement UNLESS C was a bona fide purchaser (i.e. C paid consideration and took without actual, record, or inquiry notice). If C was a BFP, the easement doesn't apply to C. If C was not a BFP, the easement applies to C and can be terminated in the standard ways, as you mentioned.

Thanks. But in the case of an easement like a path, C will never be a BFP because there is inquiry notice, right? (if he looks at the land he is buying and sees that a path is cleared from neighbors land across, he should have notice of the easement).

[atticus89]

If A has an appurtenant easement to use B's land (ex. a path to cross), and B sells to C, is it correct that the easement applies to C the same as it did to B, and to end the easement C needs to follow one of the standard ways to end an easement (ex. prescriptive or purchase of A's property)?

I believe when the servient estate is sold (B), the transferee (C) takes subject to the easement UNLESS C was a bona fide purchaser (i.e. C paid consideration and took without actual, record, or inquiry notice). If C was a BFP, the easement doesn't apply to C. If C was not a BFP, the easement applies to C and can be terminated in the standard ways, as you mentioned.

Thanks. But in the case of an easement like a path, C will never be a BFP because there is inquiry notice, right? (if he looks at the land he is buying and sees that a path is cleared from neighbors land across, he should have notice of the easement).

From what I've gathered in the practice essays, the analysis should be like:
Actual - raise and dismiss because there will never be actual notice (too easy)
Record - same
Inquiry - you argue both sides using the facts

The example you're using would tend to prove that the person should have been on inquiry notice, but I think facts could prove otherwise. For example, is it a dirt path? What if it was a path that was used for 10 years, not used often for 5 years, but wasn't abandoned? Meaning that grass grew in and it looked like there was no path there anymore. Those facts would tend to show no inquiry notice.

Remember that you don't abandon an easement just by failing to use it. If a dirt path was carved out and used for a year, but then wasn't used for a couple years and grass grew back in to make it look like part of B's land, C wouldn't necessarily be on inquiry notice because even visiting and inspecting the land wouldn't make it clear that there was an easement. The easement to use a particular tract would still be there even if a physical path wasn't there anymore.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Very valid points. Thanks.

[stronitsing]

1) Where is the MBE refresher located? Do you guys think it's worth the time? I've been caught up on state materials because I've been doing pretty well on the MBE.

2) Are you guys bothering with negligent misrepresentation in torts? It seems to be a pretty in depth rule, especially with the NY distinction, and not really tested.

3) For New York essays/MPT - is TCR to do the essays first then worry about the MPT on exam day? Seems to me that would be the way to go

4) Shonholtz grows on me with each lecture. He used to bug me but now I kind of like his ridiculousness

[Blue Ivy]

Have you found something better than Freer's steps for claim and issue preclusion? I couldn't get a handle of it during his lecture.

[BVest]

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?

I don't know if BARBRI's market share has changed or to what extent, but consider these law school matriculation numbers

Code: Select all

YEAR    New 1Ls
2010    52,500
2011    48,700
2012    44,500
2013    39,700

ETA: Some older numbers for comparison

Code: Select all

1964:    22,753
1965:    24,167
1966:    24,077
1967:    24,267
1968:    23,652 
1969:    29,128 
1970:    34,713
1971:    36,171
1972:    35,131
1973:    37,018
1974:    38,074
1975:    39,038	

ETA2: Here's even more data; I'm putting this year as much so I can find it later as I am for you all to join me in procrastination:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal ... stics.html

[victortsoi]

so everything is coming together, i think/hope, except I've totally blown off mpt. any crash courses/advice?

[charlesxavier]

I just when through the first 50 of Emanuel's mixed set. I did okay but I can definitely see how people think that the real thing feels different (or harder). With barbri on a lot of questions I could immediately eliminate 2 and then a lot of the time it was a toss-up between the remaining two (I usually choose the wrong one). I feel like with the real questions I can rarely eliminate two choices off the top but the right answer is more clearly correct than with barbri.

[Kage3212]

I just when through the first 50 of Emanuel's mixed set. I did okay but I can definitely see how people think that the real thing feels different (or harder). With barbri on a lot of questions I could immediately eliminate 2 and then a lot of the time it was a toss-up between the remaining two (I usually choose the wrong one). I feel like with the real questions I can rarely eliminate two choices off the top but the right answer is more clearly correct than with barbri.

Ive been doing so many MPQ sets 5 that I dont even remember what the previous Barbri sets were like at this point to gauge relative difficulty.

[Blue Ivy]

With respect to residential properties, there seems to be a lot of cross over between the remedies if there is breach of quiet enjoyment and breach of warranty of habitability. Aside from the commercial v. residential property context, when would analysis under one be appropriate instead of the other?

It seems like for something like a landlord not providing hot water you could argue that both would be breached. Are there times that only one is breached and the other is not?

[Kage3212]

With respect to residential properties, there seems to be a lot of cross over between the remedies if there is breach of quiet enjoyment and breach of warranty of habitability. Aside from the commercial v. residential property context, when would analysis under one be appropriate instead of the other?

It seems like for something like a landlord not providing hot water you could argue that both would be breached. Are there times that only one is breached and the other is not?

Breach of quiet enjoyment --> gotta be substantial interference, notice to LL to fix it, and then the T must leave the premisses if not fixed

Breach of habitability --> Focuses more on necessities (hot water as you mentioned probably qualifies), but T doesn't need to leave the premises in order to prove the case. So T could stay there and deduct rent, or sue for damages, etc.

For analysis sake, if the T does not quit the property, then she won't be able to get breach of quiet enjoyment remedies. The law is more strict to the T there because I think the courts really want to make sure that there is a substantial interference involved.

[envisciguy]

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

Thanks guys! I was wondering why we were going to the fallback provision, but was confusing residence and citizenship. Thanks for the explanation!

[Kage3212]

So I just watched the intro to the MBE refresher, and the woman states that we don't get scratch paper for the MBE portion. Then she goes on for about 10 minutes about how would should construct a grid on a piece of scratch paper for difficult questions. Did I miss something or is that advice just completely not feasible based on not having scratch paper?

[blue232]

I missed set 6 question 14 (property) - it starts out with "A landowner owned a large tract of land." I put B, which said "the bank's mortgage would be valid and superior because it was first in time," which was incorrect. The explanation just says that B is wrong because the jurisdiction has a race-notice statute, so the bank's interest is superior only if it is first in time and without notice of all other interests. There is nothing in the problem that suggests that the bank had notice - so was answer B wrong because it said "because it was first in time" instead of "because it was first in time AND it did not have notice of all other interests"?

[xChiTowNx]

Just took the MBE refresher -- wtf did they make the test out of questions from MPQ sets 4 to 6?!

[kykiske]

About to start the MBE refresher. May god have mercy on me.

[BVest]

I missed set 6 question 14 (property) - it starts out with "A landowner owned a large tract of land." I put B, which said "the bank's mortgage would be valid and superior because it was first in time," which was incorrect. The explanation just says that B is wrong because the jurisdiction has a race-notice statute, so the bank's interest is superior only if it is first in time and without notice of all other interests. There is nothing in the problem that suggests that the bank had notice - so was answer B wrong because it said "because it was first in time" instead of "because it was first in time AND it did not have notice of all other interests"?

Their explanation is bad there. B is a "right outcome/wrong reason" kind of answer. The reason B is incorrect is that the Bank is not superior because it was first in time. It's superior because no subsequent BFPs for value recorded first.

"No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded."

Under the question, if the sister -- who was apparently a subsequent purchaser for value without notice of the mortgage -- had recorded before the bank, the bank's mortgage would not have been superior, even though the mortgage was first in time. ("First in time" =/= "first recorded")

[diowad]

Did my second set of 50 in Emanuel's Mixed one. Did a bit better than the first (38 as opposed to 33). But I tried something new on these. I spent 3-4 minutes at the beginning going through the 50 and just looking for buzzwords and then categorizing the question by subject. Then went back and did only torts, only K's, etc. and of course saving property for last since they take me an eternity to get through. I didn't actually time myself because I've been well under the time restrictions so far and I didn't really feel myself get slower by taking the extra time to sort. It actually helped me focus a bit better knowing what type of question was coming next.

[goaheadualright]

So I just watched the intro to the MBE refresher, and the woman states that we don't get scratch paper for the MBE portion. Then she goes on for about 10 minutes about how would should construct a grid on a piece of scratch paper for difficult questions. Did I miss something or is that advice just completely not feasible based on not having scratch paper?

Have you seen any of the MBE tests that NCBE sells? Feel free to message me about this. It looks like--based on that---each question is on its own piece of paper (not like BarBri where there are at least 2/page)....so you do hve a lot of room.

[BVest]

Ugh, just learned that I did the wrong essay (Tex Real Prop). I was surprised they had me doing such an old essay. Note the difference between the text of the image and the mouseover:



Well, I guess I'll count that as an additional essay.