Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[Fivedham]

MBE question about larceny I just got wrong:

[+] Spoiler

A gardener entered a garden center through a side entrance during regular business hours. He intended to steal some parsley plants for his garden. When no one was looking, he took the two small parsley plants that the owners kept behind the front register, put them under his sweatshirt, and walked toward the exit. Near the parsley plants at the back of the store, there was a sign that advertised, “Like our parsley plants? Today only! Two free parsley plants per customer!” The gardener never saw the sign. Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as “entering any building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.” The jurisdiction follows the common-law definition of larceny. The following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness. Which is the most serious crime of which the gardener may be convicted?

A) Burglary and larceny
B) Burglary only
C) Larceny only
D) Attempted larceny only

Answer choice C is correct. Mistake of fact is only a defense if it negates the defendant’s state of mind. The gardener is guilty of larceny because he took and carried away the property of the garden center with the intent to steal. Even though the parsley plants in the back of the store were being given away for free, the gardener did not know this fact. Thus, he was taking the property of the garden center with the intent to permanently deprive the store of the parsley plants. He is not guilty of burglary because there was no unlawful entering as required under the statute. The gardener entered the garden center lawfully as an invitee at a time when the garden center was open to the public. Thus, answer choices A and B are incorrect. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the gardener did commit the crime of attempted larceny by taking a substantial step towards the completion of the crime of larceny, the crime of attempted larceny is a less serious crime than the crime of larceny.

WTF? I thought that "trespassory taking" was an element of larceny, meaning that the taking must be without the owner's consent. A "mistake of fact" here is irrelevant because the first element of larceny is not satisfied: this was not a trespassory taking. Every element of the crime must be proved in order to convict a defendant. You can't steal something that the owner has consented to you taking it... Shouldn't this have been "attempted larceny?" This would be like a defendant being convicted of murder for shooting a dog, because he honestly thought the dog was his ex wife. That would be attempted murder, not actual murder.

Am I missing something?

That question is mean spirited, but I went with larceny because all the other choices were worse and I figured there was a trap I wasn't aware of. It's clearly not burglary because the place was open and he went into an entrance that was open to the public, so scratch off A and B. Then the only issue is whether or not it was an attempt or completed crime. I figured, "Well, he did everything he intended to do, so it's probably not an attempt," and hit C.

Bullshit? Yes. I totally would've selected "No Crime" if it was an option. But process of elimination yields the least worst answer.

[WhiskeynCoke]

MBE question about larceny I just got wrong:

[+] Spoiler

A gardener entered a garden center through a side entrance during regular business hours. He intended to steal some parsley plants for his garden. When no one was looking, he took the two small parsley plants that the owners kept behind the front register, put them under his sweatshirt, and walked toward the exit. Near the parsley plants at the back of the store, there was a sign that advertised, “Like our parsley plants? Today only! Two free parsley plants per customer!” The gardener never saw the sign. Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as “entering any building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.” The jurisdiction follows the common-law definition of larceny. The following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness. Which is the most serious crime of which the gardener may be convicted?

A) Burglary and larceny
B) Burglary only
C) Larceny only
D) Attempted larceny only

Answer choice C is correct. Mistake of fact is only a defense if it negates the defendant’s state of mind. The gardener is guilty of larceny because he took and carried away the property of the garden center with the intent to steal. Even though the parsley plants in the back of the store were being given away for free, the gardener did not know this fact. Thus, he was taking the property of the garden center with the intent to permanently deprive the store of the parsley plants. He is not guilty of burglary because there was no unlawful entering as required under the statute. The gardener entered the garden center lawfully as an invitee at a time when the garden center was open to the public. Thus, answer choices A and B are incorrect. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the gardener did commit the crime of attempted larceny by taking a substantial step towards the completion of the crime of larceny, the crime of attempted larceny is a less serious crime than the crime of larceny.

WTF? I thought that "trespassory taking" was an element of larceny, meaning that the taking must be without the owner's consent. A "mistake of fact" here is irrelevant because the first element of larceny is not satisfied: this was not a trespassory taking. Every element of the crime must be proved in order to convict a defendant. You can't steal something that the owner has consented to you taking it... Shouldn't this have been "attempted larceny?" This would be like a defendant being convicted of murder for shooting a dog, because he honestly thought the dog was his ex wife. That would be attempted murder, not actual murder.

Am I missing something?

Yeah, I got this one wrong too, and had similar problems with the answer. It seems weird, it's like they're offensively using mistake of fact.

It's trespassory because it's technically property of the garden store, even though they were giving it away for free, so that element is met.

Uhhh, no way... that's not the definition of trespass. Trespassory doesn't mean "it belongs to someone else....period." Trespassory means "it belongs to someone else AND the owner has not consented to you taking it."

If a landowner gives me permission to go on their land, that is not a trespass, even though the land belongs to the owner. The same is true for personal property. Trespass requires: (1) belongs to someone else; (2) no consent to take it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your explanation?

[WhiskeynCoke]

MBE question about larceny I just got wrong:

[+] Spoiler

A gardener entered a garden center through a side entrance during regular business hours. He intended to steal some parsley plants for his garden. When no one was looking, he took the two small parsley plants that the owners kept behind the front register, put them under his sweatshirt, and walked toward the exit. Near the parsley plants at the back of the store, there was a sign that advertised, “Like our parsley plants? Today only! Two free parsley plants per customer!” The gardener never saw the sign. Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as “entering any building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.” The jurisdiction follows the common-law definition of larceny. The following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness. Which is the most serious crime of which the gardener may be convicted?

A) Burglary and larceny
B) Burglary only
C) Larceny only
D) Attempted larceny only

Answer choice C is correct. Mistake of fact is only a defense if it negates the defendant’s state of mind. The gardener is guilty of larceny because he took and carried away the property of the garden center with the intent to steal. Even though the parsley plants in the back of the store were being given away for free, the gardener did not know this fact. Thus, he was taking the property of the garden center with the intent to permanently deprive the store of the parsley plants. He is not guilty of burglary because there was no unlawful entering as required under the statute. The gardener entered the garden center lawfully as an invitee at a time when the garden center was open to the public. Thus, answer choices A and B are incorrect. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the gardener did commit the crime of attempted larceny by taking a substantial step towards the completion of the crime of larceny, the crime of attempted larceny is a less serious crime than the crime of larceny.

WTF? I thought that "trespassory taking" was an element of larceny, meaning that the taking must be without the owner's consent. A "mistake of fact" here is irrelevant because the first element of larceny is not satisfied: this was not a trespassory taking. Every element of the crime must be proved in order to convict a defendant. You can't steal something that the owner has consented to you taking it... Shouldn't this have been "attempted larceny?" This would be like a defendant being convicted of murder for shooting a dog, because he honestly thought the dog was his ex wife. That would be attempted murder, not actual murder.

Am I missing something?

That question is mean spirited, but I went with larceny because all the other choices were worse and I figured there was a trap I wasn't aware of. It's clearly not burglary because the place was open and he went into an entrance that was open to the public, so scratch off A and B. Then the only issue is whether or not it was an attempt or completed crime. I figured, "Well, he did everything he intended to do, so it's probably not an attempt," and hit C.

Bullshit? Yes. I totally would've selected "No Crime" if it was an option. But process of elimination yields the least worst answer.

But this is clearly at least attempted larceny. He had the specific intent to steal the plants and took substantial steps toward doing so. His mistake of fact (that there was no consent) does not negate his mens rea because he wanted to steal. Thus, his mistake of fact is irrelevant. The relevant fact here was that the garden store owner was giving away two plants for free to every "customer," so there was no trespass if the defendant counts as a "customer" (consent negates trespass).

I think a more satisfactory answer, THEMIS (you fuckwad), would be that the "thief" did NOT have the store owner's consent to take the two plants because the "thief" was not a "customer," because he was in the store solely to steal, not shop/buy things. Therefore, the owner's consent does not extend to him (only to customers). If this was a real MBE question and not just stupid made-up Themis trash, I suspect that this is actually the correct explanation.

[salix]

MBE question about larceny I just got wrong:

[+] Spoiler

A gardener entered a garden center through a side entrance during regular business hours. He intended to steal some parsley plants for his garden. When no one was looking, he took the two small parsley plants that the owners kept behind the front register, put them under his sweatshirt, and walked toward the exit. Near the parsley plants at the back of the store, there was a sign that advertised, “Like our parsley plants? Today only! Two free parsley plants per customer!” The gardener never saw the sign. Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as “entering any building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.” The jurisdiction follows the common-law definition of larceny. The following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness. Which is the most serious crime of which the gardener may be convicted?

A) Burglary and larceny
B) Burglary only
C) Larceny only
D) Attempted larceny only

Answer choice C is correct. Mistake of fact is only a defense if it negates the defendant’s state of mind. The gardener is guilty of larceny because he took and carried away the property of the garden center with the intent to steal. Even though the parsley plants in the back of the store were being given away for free, the gardener did not know this fact. Thus, he was taking the property of the garden center with the intent to permanently deprive the store of the parsley plants. He is not guilty of burglary because there was no unlawful entering as required under the statute. The gardener entered the garden center lawfully as an invitee at a time when the garden center was open to the public. Thus, answer choices A and B are incorrect. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the gardener did commit the crime of attempted larceny by taking a substantial step towards the completion of the crime of larceny, the crime of attempted larceny is a less serious crime than the crime of larceny.

WTF? I thought that "trespassory taking" was an element of larceny, meaning that the taking must be without the owner's consent. A "mistake of fact" here is irrelevant because the first element of larceny is not satisfied: this was not a trespassory taking. Every element of the crime must be proved in order to convict a defendant. You can't steal something that the owner has consented to you taking it... Shouldn't this have been "attempted larceny?" This would be like a defendant being convicted of murder for shooting a dog, because he honestly thought the dog was his ex wife. That would be attempted murder, not actual murder.

Am I missing something?

Yeah, I got this one wrong too, and had similar problems with the answer. It seems weird, it's like they're offensively using mistake of fact.

It's trespassory because it's technically property of the garden store, even though they were giving it away for free, so that element is met.

Uhhh, no way... that's not the definition of trespass. Trespassory doesn't mean "it belongs to someone else....period." Trespassory means "it belongs to someone else AND the owner has not consented to you taking it."

If a landowner gives me permission to go on their land, that is not a trespass, even though the land belongs to the owner. The same is true for personal property. Trespass requires: (1) belongs to someone else; (2) no consent to take it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your explanation?

So maybe this turns on the way that he took it, and not just that he took it? Like if a landowner gives you permission to go on her land for a specific reason, or use her land in a specific way, the moment you go beyond that, you are trespassing. Here, the garden center owner intended that the parsley plants be taken as part of a promotional giveaway, so even though the garden center is giving up two plants either way, they aren't getting back what they expected (maybe the goodwill of the customer that gets the plants? or the goodwill of other customers seeing a happy customer leaving with his two plants?). So since the gardener isn't taking the plants in the way the store intended, it is a trespassory taking. In other words, the store has a right to determine how they are relieved of the two plants. And an act inconsistent with that right is trespassory.

[Robb]

Right, there were two other possible explanations I was thinking of.

(1) is that the consent didn't extend to the two plants behind the desk, as it doesn't appear those ones were for sale; e.g., if I tell you that you can have one free computer, and you break into our storage room and take one from there rather than the store room, then that's probably larceny.

(2) is that taking "without consent" means taking without knowledge of consent, but that's a pretty important distinction for Themis to have left out.

But neither explanation is terribly persuasive, and for an "objective" test this seems like a bullshit question (unless the rules is really #2, in which case, Themis, why didn't you just say that?)

[salix]

Right, there were two other possible explanations I was thinking of.

(1) is that the consent didn't extend to the two plants behind the desk, as it doesn't appear those ones were for sale; e.g., if I tell you that you can have one free computer, and you break into our storage room and take one from there rather than the store room, then that's probably larceny.

(2) is that taking "without consent" means taking without knowledge of consent, but that's a pretty important distinction for Themis to have left out.

But neither explanation is terribly persuasive, and for an "objective" test this seems like a bullshit question (unless the rules is really #2, in which case, Themis, why didn't you just say that?)

I was thinking about your second point too. This being larceny because the gardener didn't know about the free offer kind of parallels the idea that if there is an offer for a reward of a lost dog, and you return the dog without knowledge of the reward offer, you have no right to the reward.

(But this feels like a big reach to rationalize the outcome of the question.)

[ndp1234]

MBE question about larceny I just got wrong:

[+] Spoiler

A gardener entered a garden center through a side entrance during regular business hours. He intended to steal some parsley plants for his garden. When no one was looking, he took the two small parsley plants that the owners kept behind the front register, put them under his sweatshirt, and walked toward the exit. Near the parsley plants at the back of the store, there was a sign that advertised, “Like our parsley plants? Today only! Two free parsley plants per customer!” The gardener never saw the sign. Burglary in the jurisdiction is defined as “entering any building unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.” The jurisdiction follows the common-law definition of larceny. The following crimes are listed in descending order of seriousness. Which is the most serious crime of which the gardener may be convicted?

A) Burglary and larceny
B) Burglary only
C) Larceny only
D) Attempted larceny only

Answer choice C is correct. Mistake of fact is only a defense if it negates the defendant’s state of mind. The gardener is guilty of larceny because he took and carried away the property of the garden center with the intent to steal. Even though the parsley plants in the back of the store were being given away for free, the gardener did not know this fact. Thus, he was taking the property of the garden center with the intent to permanently deprive the store of the parsley plants. He is not guilty of burglary because there was no unlawful entering as required under the statute. The gardener entered the garden center lawfully as an invitee at a time when the garden center was open to the public. Thus, answer choices A and B are incorrect. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although the gardener did commit the crime of attempted larceny by taking a substantial step towards the completion of the crime of larceny, the crime of attempted larceny is a less serious crime than the crime of larceny.

WTF? I thought that "trespassory taking" was an element of larceny, meaning that the taking must be without the owner's consent. A "mistake of fact" here is irrelevant because the first element of larceny is not satisfied: this was not a trespassory taking. Every element of the crime must be proved in order to convict a defendant. You can't steal something that the owner has consented to you taking it... Shouldn't this have been "attempted larceny?" This would be like a defendant being convicted of murder for shooting a dog, because he honestly thought the dog was his ex wife. That would be attempted murder, not actual murder.

Am I missing something?

Yeah, I got this one wrong too, and had similar problems with the answer. It seems weird, it's like they're offensively using mistake of fact.

It's trespassory because it's technically property of the garden store, even though they were giving it away for free, so that element is met.

Uhhh, no way... that's not the definition of trespass. Trespassory doesn't mean "it belongs to someone else....period." Trespassory means "it belongs to someone else AND the owner has not consented to you taking it."

If a landowner gives me permission to go on their land, that is not a trespass, even though the land belongs to the owner. The same is true for personal property. Trespass requires: (1) belongs to someone else; (2) no consent to take it.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your explanation?

Even though it's free, you still need consent to take it. It technically still belongs to the garden shop. They have title, not the gardener. He took it without its consent. The fact that it's free does not affect any part of the analysis.

[BigZuck]

It does feel like the murder questions where the person shoots someone who is already dead and thus it's just attempted murder. I see why it feels like this should just be attempt.

But he's creeping in to the store, he's grabbing the two parsley plants that the owners keep behind the register (NOT the ones by the sign), and he's creeping away like a totally creeper.

Let Themis Them for once guys, it's earned it at this point. Hopefully the real bar won't be this BS-y but even if it is we're all more than equipped to pass.

[ndp1234]

It does feel like the murder questions where the person shoots someone who is already dead and thus it's just attempted murder. I see why it feels like this should just be attempt.

But he's creeping in to the store, he's grabbing the two parsley plants that the owners keep behind the register (NOT the ones by the sign), and he's creeping away like a totally creeper.

Let Themis Them for once guys, it's earned it at this point. Hopefully the real bar won't be this BS-y but even if it is we're all more than equipped to pass.

I just did a couple of Con Law/Civ Pro practice essay questions. I love how Themis' sample answers quote constitutional provisions like w're going to remember verbatim constitutional clauses on the exam.

[unidentifiable]

lol, found this: http://witnesseth.typepad.com/blog/2013 ... e-bar.html

[pheerful22]

i have completed 91.7% of the course and still feel unprepared...normal? the first time i took the bar back in 2009 I used barbri. I have preferred themis but don't remember how i felt this close to the exam last time.....

I think that's normal. I took it in 2013 with Kaplan. I remember the day before the exam, contemplating studying- and then decide agaiant it b/c I was thinking- screw this, I'll never learn it all, might as well relax

that is what my husband keeps telling me. he doesnt want me studying the day before the exam starts.

[pheerful22]

i have completed 91.7% of the course and still feel unprepared...normal? the first time i took the bar back in 2009 I used barbri. I have preferred themis but don't remember how i felt this close to the exam last time.....

I think that's normal. I took it in 2013 with Kaplan. I remember the day before the exam, contemplating studying- and then decide agaiant it b/c I was thinking- screw this, I'll never learn it all, might as well relax

For those taking the bar in another jurisdiction again, did you feel like you could maybe spend less time (half the summer as opposed to the whole summer) for the next jurisdiction?

no i definitely feel like i am spending more time - i haven't taken a bar exam in 7 years so i forgot a lot plus i just had a baby about 2 months before i started studying so i feel like i have to cram studying into small spurts since my son demands a lot of attention and time and the sitter is only here for 6 hours a day.

[livinlaw]

i just paid the $50 on the NCBE website to take one of their 100 question practice tests. It was #1, revised in 2014 (there is no civ pro on it, but I did do the sample civ pro questions on their website too). I got a 155, which is such a relief, I know it still doesn't guarantee anything but the highest I have scored on a Themis mixed set is 64%, so I really needed the extra confidence boost. Taking that test at least made me feel like I'm not totally screwed (for reference, I'm at 87% completion on Themis, and approx 1900 MBE questions done).

So, basically my point is if you have $50, want more practice, and potentially a confidence boost, I think it's worth it.

[livinlaw]

i have completed 91.7% of the course and still feel unprepared...normal? the first time i took the bar back in 2009 I used barbri. I have preferred themis but don't remember how i felt this close to the exam last time.....

I think that's normal. I took it in 2013 with Kaplan. I remember the day before the exam, contemplating studying- and then decide agaiant it b/c I was thinking- screw this, I'll never learn it all, might as well relax

that is what my husband keeps telling me. he doesnt want me studying the day before the exam starts.

My plan the day before is to do a "test run" to the testing site, just read over some FROs, and then at 445 I booked a massage. After that gonna try to go to sleep by 9:00. I really dont even know how to relax anymore, so hoping the massage helps!

... but I'm in Florida and a professor did recommend doing some practice Evidence MBE questions on Monday night after relaxing a bit, eating, etc. bc the Florida evidence and MBE evidence can be pretty different.

[Vantwins]

i have completed 91.7% of the course and still feel unprepared...normal? the first time i took the bar back in 2009 I used barbri. I have preferred themis but don't remember how i felt this close to the exam last time.....

I think that's normal. I took it in 2013 with Kaplan. I remember the day before the exam, contemplating studying- and then decide agaiant it b/c I was thinking- screw this, I'll never learn it all, might as well relax

For those taking the bar in another jurisdiction again, did you feel like you could maybe spend less time (half the summer as opposed to the whole summer) for the next jurisdiction?

Hell no, I feel like I'm having to study more not less, but that's because I took the VA Bar in 2003! If you don't wait 13 years, you may retain some info.

[bobbypin]

i just paid the $50 on the NCBE website to take one of their 100 question practice tests. It was #1, revised in 2014 (there is no civ pro on it, but I did do the sample civ pro questions on their website too). I got a 155, which is such a relief, I know it still doesn't guarantee anything but the highest I have scored on a Themis mixed set is 64%, so I really needed the extra confidence boost. Taking that test at least made me feel like I'm not totally screwed (for reference, I'm at 87% completion on Themis, and approx 1900 MBE questions done).

So, basically my point is if you have $50, want more practice, and potentially a confidence boost, I think it's worth it.

Those of you who have Adaptibar, they also have NCBE 100 Q sets.
OPE 1: 100 Questions from 2006
OPE 2: 100 Questions from 2009
OPE 3: 100 Questions from 2011
OPE 4: 100 Questions from 2013

[blach0987]

This paper 100 set was horrible, or is it just me and I'm doomed?!

[Vantwins]

This paper 100 set was horrible, or is it just me and I'm doomed?!

I am SO not doing that set after you've all complained about it!

I wouldn't worry about it, I think you're the 10th person to say it was awful.

[Easy-E]

This paper 100 set was horrible, or is it just me and I'm doomed?!

Which set are you referring to? The additional practice?

[crisdavila]

Anyone know what were the Barbri Predictions for the MEE?

[WinSome]

This paper 100 set was horrible, or is it just me and I'm doomed?!

Which set are you referring to? The additional practice?

He's gotta be talking about the additional 100 in the book. It had so many BS questions involving minor exceptions to rules and tons of poorly worded questions. Even ones I got right, I was like "Come on! There's no way the MBE is going to test on this!"

Regarding the garden store question, I remember that one, and its pure BS. I went through the elements of larceny and it's a trespassory taking of another's property because it was behind the register, he carried it away, and he had the specific intent to deprive the owner permanently of it. Where I disagree with the question is the without consent element. I thought consent focused on the owner of the property, not whether the thief knew about the consent. I put attempt because he didn't meet the no consent argument. Because he didn't think he had consent, he had the specific intent necessary for larceny and took a substantial step, hence attempt. The only argument I can see that he did not have consent is that the owner's consent did not extend to the plants behind the register.

I'm over 94% and having trouble doing anything. I feel good about most of the material, but just have lost all motivation to study. I'm thinking about forgoing my 100% goal and taking Saturday off before reviewing stuff Sunday and Monday.

[luxxe]

Anyone know what were the Barbri Predictions for the MEE?

Civil Procedure
Property
Contracts / UCC Sales
Trusts
Corporations
Family Law
Conflict of Law

[blach0987]

This paper 100 set was horrible, or is it just me and I'm doomed?!

Which set are you referring to? The additional practice?

The additional practice thats at the end of the book with the simulated MBEs

[Sheeit]

These two questions about delivering a deed seem at odds, anybody have any insight?

My issue

[+] Spoiler

Question 1 says that the deed was never delivered to his niece, even though was recorded. Question 2 says recording the deed creates a presumption of delivery. Acceptance of a beneficial conveyance is presumed. Why isnt the deed in question 1 delivered, but the deed in question 2 is?

Question 1.

[+] Spoiler

The owner of undeveloped land had his attorney prepare a deed transferring the land to his niece as a surprise. The uncle signed the deed and had his attorney record it. However, before the uncle delivered the deed to his niece, the two had a falling out. After the man’s death, the niece learned about the deed when it was found among her uncle’s papers. She transferred her interest in the land by quitclaim deed to a good faith buyer for valuable consideration. The buyer promptly recorded this deed. By will, the owner left his real property to a nephew. The recording statute in the applicable jurisdiction states: “Any conveyance of an interest in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is recorded.” Who owns the land?

Answers:

Correct Answer: The nephew, because he was the devisee of the owner’s real property.
The nephew, because the buyer’s interest in the land was obtained through a quitclaim deed.
You Selected: The buyer, because the uncle’s deed to his niece was recorded.
The buyer, because the buyer gave valuable consideration for the niece’s interest.
Rationale:

Answer choice A is correct. The uncle retained ownership of the land at his death because he never delivered the deed to his niece, and thus did not complete the gift. Accordingly, the land passed by will to his nephew. Answer choice B is incorrect because the property could have been transferred by quitclaim deed if the niece had owned it. The transfer of a real property interest through a quitclaim deed does not by itself place the transferee on notice as to a problem with the transferor’s ownership of the transferred property. Instead, a quitclaim deed merely limits the liability of the transferor. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the recording of a deed generally protects a person who buys the property from the record owner, the recording of a deed does not validate an otherwise invalid transfer. Here, since the uncle did not complete the gift to his niece by delivering the deed to her, she did not obtain ownership of the land and therefore could not sell it to a third party. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although a good faith purchaser of real property from the record owner is generally protected from other claimants to the property, in this case the record owner never obtained ownership of the land.

"The uncle retained ownership of the land at his death because he never delivered the deed to his niece, and thus did not complete the gift"

Question 2.

[+] Spoiler

A mother owned a vacation cabin, but as she no longer visited it, she decided to convey the cabin to her daughter. The mother executed a valid, written deed, and promptly and properly recorded it. The mother did not tell her daughter about her intention of giving the cabin to her because she wanted to surprise her with the gift at an upcoming family reunion. Prior to the reunion, the daughter died suddenly. In her will, the daughter left her entire estate to her best friend. The mother, not wanting the cabin to go to someone who was not a family member, brought an action to set aside the conveyance to the best friend.
Who will prevail?

Answers:

Correct Answer: The best friend, because the mother recorded the deed conveying the cabin to her daughter.
The best friend, because the mother’s intent was evidenced by a valid deed in writing.
The mother, because she did not deliver the deed to her daughter.
You Selected: The mother, because the daughter did not accept her mother’s gift.
Rationale:

Answer choice A is correct. Although it is often stated that a deed must be delivered in order for a real property interest to pass (i.e., a delivery requirement), the term “delivery” is used as shorthand for the existence of the necessary grantor intent. Physical transfer of a deed is not required and is not conclusive evidence of the grantor’s intent. Intent can be implied from the words and conduct of the grantor, such as when the grantor executes and records a deed. Here, there is a presumption of delivery because the mother recorded the deed. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although a valid, written deed does evidence the mother’s intent to make a gift to her daughter, the deed on its own does not create a presumption of delivery. Answer choice C is incorrect because actual, physical delivery is not required—the recording of the deed was sufficient to create a presumption of delivery. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although acceptance is required for a transfer to be complete, the grantee is generally presumed to have accepted any beneficial conveyance. Acceptance relates back to the time the deed was transferred, unless a bona fide purchaser or creditor of the grantor would be negatively affected by doing so, which is not the case here.

[ultimolugar]

This paper 100 set was horrible, or is it just me and I'm doomed?!

Yeah, it's an outlier for sure. 54 here. Don't do it. Not this close to gametime.