July 2016 California Bar Exam Forum

[MsAvocadoPit]

is PTA or PTB supposed to be more difficult? Is there an order? Or it can be either? I didn't think PTA was that bad.

[loh]

wow so CA Civ Pro for the first time ever. I remember last year some guy thought contract/remedy was a ca civ pro and did an entire analysis on it. I still LOL to this day sadly.

[runner1111]

I guess technically one of the essay questions was property/contract, but I pretty quickly concluded that the breach of contract claim would fail because the contract merged into the deed. She didn't sue until after closing.

Hope I didn't mess that up and miss some big issues.

[Sunny1211]

For call 1 of the 2nd essay did anyone discuss the vertical and horizontal privity for the burden to run?

[TookDaBait]

no.. it was an easement not a restrictive covenant. unless i fucking missed something.

[Zaizei]

For call 1 of the 2nd essay did anyone discuss the vertical and horizontal privity for the burden to run?

No need, he was not asking for money damages, so it was an equitable servitude and privity is not supposed to be discussed, only intent, notice and touch and concern the land.

[Zaizei]

no.. it was an easement not a restrictive covenant. unless i fucking missed something.

Yep, but for an easement to run with the land you have to analyze it under a covenant or equitable servitude theory, depending on what the plaintiff is asking (to apply the burden or money damages).

[runner1111]

For call 1 of the 2nd essay did anyone discuss the vertical and horizontal privity for the burden to run?

No need, he was not asking for money damages, so it was an equitable servitude and privity is not supposed to be discussed, only intent, notice and touch and concern the land.

An easement is an interest in land, not a restrictive covenant. The burden runs with the land as long as whoever takes the servient estate takes with notice.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

.

[clown77]

For call 1 of the 2nd essay did anyone discuss the vertical and horizontal privity for the burden to run?

No need, he was not asking for money damages, so it was an equitable servitude and privity is not supposed to be discussed, only intent, notice and touch and concern the land.

An easement is an interest in land, not a restrictive covenant. The burden runs with the land as long as whoever takes the servient estate takes with notice.

Yes. What he or she said.

[TookDaBait]

no.. it was an easement not a restrictive covenant. unless i fucking missed something.

Yep, but for an easement to run with the land you have to analyze it under a covenant or equitable servitude theory, depending on what the plaintiff is asking (to apply the burden or money damages).

Not true. An easement runs with the servient land so long as the possessor of the dominant land hasn't relinquished the easement, the easement wasn't destroyed by the circumstances, or the subsequent buyer of the servient land was a BFP for value. You don't go into vertical privity or horizontal because it's not a covenant or equitable servitude...

so you went into the estoppel route?

[trojankid09]

but it wasn't pure CA Civ Pro though...right? there was a good amount of federal in there

[Sunny1211]

fuck I screwed up! I did the entire "burden to run analysis" under Real Covenant analysis... FML...

[superabogadisima]

no.. it was an easement not a restrictive covenant. unless i fucking missed something.

Yep, but for an easement to run with the land you have to analyze it under a covenant or equitable servitude theory, depending on what the plaintiff is asking (to apply the burden or money damages).

Not true. An easement runs with the servient land so long as the possessor of the dominant land hasn't relinquished the easement, the easement wasn't destroyed by the circumstances, or the subsequent buyer of the servient land was a BFP for value. You don't go into vertical privity or horizontal because it's not a covenant or equitable servitude...

so you went into the estoppel route?

Yes, easement transfer auto unless BFP with notice (which she had) easement was an express grant unless not signed which the facts weren't super clear, so fallback estoppel!

Also agree with the merger theory of the Contract

Can somebody please tell me the citizenship of an alien for jx purposes???

[2TimesTheCharm]

For call 1 of the 2nd essay did anyone discuss the vertical and horizontal privity for the burden to run?

No need, he was not asking for money damages, so it was an equitable servitude and privity is not supposed to be discussed, only intent, notice and touch and concern the land.

An easement is an interest in land, not a restrictive covenant. The burden runs with the land as long as whoever takes the servient estate takes with notice.

Yes. What he or she said.

Did anyone talk about notice/ race-notice/ race jurisdiction? I just said that lady had notice because i stupidly just assumed we're going by CA laws only and CA is race-notice. I also talked about implication and estoppel, in case she tries the "i didn't have notice" argument despite 1) seeing the guy use the easement, and 2) failing to do her own due diligence when buying land

[Ibis305]

no.. it was an easement not a restrictive covenant. unless i fucking missed something.

Yep, but for an easement to run with the land you have to analyze it under a covenant or equitable servitude theory, depending on what the plaintiff is asking (to apply the burden or money damages).

Not true. An easement runs with the servient land so long as the possessor of the dominant land hasn't relinquished the easement, the easement wasn't destroyed by the circumstances, or the subsequent buyer of the servient land was a BFP for value. You don't go into vertical privity or horizontal because it's not a covenant or equitable servitude...

so you went into the estoppel route?

Yes, easement transfer auto unless BFP with notice (which she had) easement was an express grant unless not signed which the facts weren't super clear, so fallback estoppel!

Also agree with the merger theory of the Contract

Can somebody please tell me the citizenship of an alien for jx purposes???

Yep me too. I talked about easement appurtenant running with the land, but said even if that doesn't work there was an easement by estoppel.

[runner1111]

For call 1 of the 2nd essay did anyone discuss the vertical and horizontal privity for the burden to run?

No need, he was not asking for money damages, so it was an equitable servitude and privity is not supposed to be discussed, only intent, notice and touch and concern the land.

An easement is an interest in land, not a restrictive covenant. The burden runs with the land as long as whoever takes the servient estate takes with notice.

Yes. What he or she said.

Did anyone talk about notice/ race-notice/ race jurisdiction? I just said that lady had notice because i stupidly just assumed we're going by CA laws only and CA is race-notice. I also talked about implication and estoppel, in case she tries the "i didn't have notice" argument despite 1) seeing the guy use the easement, and 2) failing to do her own due diligence when buying land

Just said she had notice as well. The issue was not who takes; it was only a question of notice. The type of statute doesn't matter.

[Interpretationc]

no.. it was an easement not a restrictive covenant. unless i fucking missed something.

Yep, but for an easement to run with the land you have to analyze it under a covenant or equitable servitude theory, depending on what the plaintiff is asking (to apply the burden or money damages).

Not true. An easement runs with the servient land so long as the possessor of the dominant land hasn't relinquished the easement, the easement wasn't destroyed by the circumstances, or the subsequent buyer of the servient land was a BFP for value. You don't go into vertical privity or horizontal because it's not a covenant or equitable servitude...

so you went into the estoppel route?

Yes, easement transfer auto unless BFP with notice (which she had) easement was an express grant unless not signed which the facts weren't super clear, so fallback estoppel!

Also agree with the merger theory of the Contract

Can somebody please tell me the citizenship of an alien for jx purposes???

For easement analysis, check question 3 Feb 2011, a most same fact pattern, and sample answer is pretty straight forward. For citizenship of an alien, they can be sued in any jurisdiction in the US, but we have another plaintiff, so must be considered together, ca long statute adopted due process, so it ends up with discussion on due precession for ca purpose

[superabogadisima]

no.. it was an easement not a restrictive covenant. unless i fucking missed something.

Yep, but for an easement to run with the land you have to analyze it under a covenant or equitable servitude theory, depending on what the plaintiff is asking (to apply the burden or money damages).

Not true. An easement runs with the servient land so long as the possessor of the dominant land hasn't relinquished the easement, the easement wasn't destroyed by the circumstances, or the subsequent buyer of the servient land was a BFP for value. You don't go into vertical privity or horizontal because it's not a covenant or equitable servitude...

so you went into the estoppel route?

Yes, easement transfer auto unless BFP with notice (which she had) easement was an express grant unless not signed which the facts weren't super clear, so fallback estoppel!

Also agree with the merger theory of the Contract

Can somebody please tell me the citizenship of an alien for jx purposes???

For easement analysis, check question 3 Feb 2011, a most same fact pattern, and sample answer is pretty straight forward. For citizenship of an alien, they can be sued in any jurisdiction in the US, but we have another plaintiff, so must be considered together, ca long statute adopted due process, so it ends up with discussion on due precession for ca purpose

And of course not fair for the German company to be sued in CA under due process right? No mimunim contacts etc

Thanks for the alien jx answer that's what I wrote but I based it on the fact that alien jx is everywhere bc immigration is federal hahaha the grader will LOL with my answer although at the end I reached the same conclusion.

[TookDaBait]

that stream of commerce tho..

[2TimesTheCharm]

still thinking 50/55 for the first two essays. i'll be glad to see the mbe tomorrow

[Interpretationc]

no.. it was an easement not a restrictive covenant. unless i fucking missed something.

Yep, but for an easement to run with the land you have to analyze it under a covenant or equitable servitude theory, depending on what the plaintiff is asking (to apply the burden or money damages).

Not true. An easement runs with the servient land so long as the possessor of the dominant land hasn't relinquished the easement, the easement wasn't destroyed by the circumstances, or the subsequent buyer of the servient land was a BFP for value. You don't go into vertical privity or horizontal because it's not a covenant or equitable servitude...

so you went into the estoppel route?

Yes, easement transfer auto unless BFP with notice (which she had) easement was an express grant unless not signed which the facts weren't super clear, so fallback estoppel!

Also agree with the merger theory of the Contract

Can somebody please tell me the citizenship of an alien for jx purposes???

For easement analysis, check question 3 Feb 2011, a most same fact pattern, and sample answer is pretty straight forward. For citizenship of an alien, they can be sued in any jurisdiction in the US, but we have another plaintiff, so must be considered together, ca long statute adopted due process, so it ends up with discussion on due precession for ca purpose

And of course not fair for the German company to be sued in CA under due process right? No mimunim contacts etc

Thanks for the alien jx answer that's what I wrote but I based it on the fact that alien jx is everywhere bc immigration is federal hahaha the grader will LOL with my answer although at the end I reached the same conclusion.

It sells products, purposeful availment found, general jurisdiction found, notion of fair play balancing test favors more finding jurisdiction, so my conclusion is due process found. But I think as long as you go through every issue, conclusion won't matter it's a balancing test, you get whole points

[Sunny1211]

still thinking 50/55 for the first two essays. i'll be glad to see the mbe tomorrow

I am with you on that one....fuck!

[OutoftheWoods]

dammit i said laches instead of easement by estoppel lol. not sure if it'll hurt me that much. i thought #2 was deceptively easy, and it looks like it was (just notice, merger, and breach of warranty). i had only 3800 characters on softest which worried me.

[llaawwsscchhooooll]

While the essay was clearly about CA (superior court, etc.), did it "expressly" ask us to use CA law? Anyone have thoughts on this?

The last line of the instructions said: "Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application."