February 2015 Bar Exam Forum

[nvbar2015]

You know what I really really fucking hate? secured transactions. It feels like a simple topic that is made needlessly confusing and for whatever reason I just cannot wrap my BRAIN around it. I'm absolutely terrified of a secured transactions-heavy contracts questions.

Anyone have strategies for this?? So far my biggest moment of clarity was when I thought "oh....its like buying washer at sears." And then it got to automatic perfection and the moment passed.

Professor Molls stated you have to know:

types of goods/ semi-intangibles etc.
attachment and sub-elements
ways to perfect
basic priority rules
PMSI rules

Most of these aren't too hard, it's just pure memorization.

[minnbills]

ST was my jam in law school. I'd be happy to send you my outline.

Make sure to remember: "first in time is first in right" for priority and that the security interest will attach to proceeds. Moreover, the creditor can usually go after both the proceeds AND the collateral now in a third party's hands, unless the buyer in the ordinary course exception applies.

For short, remember that you need to file to perfect a security agreement for almost everything, unless you have possession or control of the collateral.

[Holly Golightly]

You know what I really really fucking hate? secured transactions. It feels like a simple topic that is made needlessly confusing and for whatever reason I just cannot wrap my BRAIN around it. I'm absolutely terrified of a secured transactions-heavy contracts questions.

Anyone have strategies for this?? So far my biggest moment of clarity was when I thought "oh....its like buying washer at sears." And then it got to automatic perfection and the moment passed.

As I said in my bar crazies thread:

If I get a secured transactions essay question, my answer is going to be something along the lines of:

"There is a transaction here. And it looks like the transaction was secured. It's unclear whether the transaction was perfected and who has priority over the security. It could be party A, or it could be party B. But it seems like party A would have priority because of perfection and prioritization of possession of chattels."

And yes, I am mostly serious.

[cooperlaserpup]

Haha, thank guys. I appreciate the offer for an outline but at this point it is probably much more info than I need to know. I'm going to try and memorize a few things without really understanding them, and then talk about filing and perfection if it comes up on the test. Oh the glories of forsaking real learning and understanding in order to cater to a test that is largely obsolete given that we live in an information age and would be unethical and ineffective if we DIDN'T look up the law every time we did anything....

[YibanRen]

Secured transactions, the one topic I don't know, at all (and I took it in law school).

Oh well, it is worth, on average, an MBE question per examination to learn it.

But, it usually appears at least once a cycle and wasn't on it last time, so we're due and I probably need to learn it.

[cooperlaserpup]

Secured transactions, the one topic I don't know, at all (and I took it in law school).

Oh well, it is worth, on average, an MBE question per examination to learn it.

But, it usually appears at least once a cycle and wasn't on it last time, so we're due and I probably need to learn it.

I'm confused. Do you mean MEE? It is not tested on the MBE.

[YibanRen]

Haha, thank guys. I appreciate the offer for an outline but at this point it is probably much more info than I need to know. I'm going to try and memorize a few things without really understanding them, and then talk about filing and perfection if it comes up on the test. Oh the glories of forsaking real learning and understanding in order to cater to a test that is largely obsolete given that we live in an information age and would be unethical and ineffective if we DIDN'T look up the law every time we did anything....

Eh, I think they know this. Now, it is more of a minimal intelligence/diligence competency test, not a legal knowledge test.

[cooperlaserpup]

Haha, thank guys. I appreciate the offer for an outline but at this point it is probably much more info than I need to know. I'm going to try and memorize a few things without really understanding them, and then talk about filing and perfection if it comes up on the test. Oh the glories of forsaking real learning and understanding in order to cater to a test that is largely obsolete given that we live in an information age and would be unethical and ineffective if we DIDN'T look up the law every time we did anything....

Eh, I think they know this. Now, it is more of a minimal intelligence/diligence competency test, not a legal knowledge test.

Exactly my point. I think it is a useless waste of time and energy and not an effective way to screen for talented and ethical individuals in the profession. A person's ability to perform on this test has very little to do with their potential as an attorney, in my opinion.

But at this point is neither here nor there. Just gotta suffer through it!

[OfThriceandTen]

How do you stop overcomplicating things? My worst MBE subject by far is Torts. I'm lucky to get maybe 50%. I started off getting 70-80% right in Torts and it's been a steady decline. My best subjects are Evidence and Contracts, perhaps because the classes I took on those were actually dedicated to the rules and how the law is actually applied, whereas my Torts class was largely intellectual circle jerks about rationales and policies. Should I keep banging out Torts MBE questions and hope to figure out the system, or just give it up and learn law in the subjects there is still law for me to learn?

[cooperlaserpup]

ST was my jam in law school. I'd be happy to send you my outline.

Make sure to remember: "first in time is first in right" for priority and that the security interest will attach to proceeds. Moreover, the creditor can usually go after both the proceeds AND the collateral now in a third party's hands, unless the buyer in the ordinary course exception applies.

For short, remember that you need to file to perfect a security agreement for almost everything, unless you have possession or control of the collateral.

As a sec trans expert, lemme ask you: I've now seen maybe three sample essays where the secured transaction issue comes up as a potential defense for a trespass claim during a self-help repo man situation. Fair to say this is a good fact pattern to focus my somewhat narrow study of the subject?

Welcome input from all you kiddos who are good at sec trans

[badaboom61]

Would anyone be willing to pm a commercial paper / UCC Article 3 outline? I doubt there will be many questions about it but I figure I should at least figure out what an instrument is and how to negotiate one.

[OfThriceandTen]

Would anyone be willing to pm a commercial paper / UCC Article 3 outline? I doubt there will be many questions about it but I figure I should at least figure out what an instrument is and how to negotiate one.

I've taken what I realize is now way too many commercial paper essay questions, and I've seen it as part of a contracts Q. Largely the only area they test is how to become a holder in due course and what your rights are once you are.

[minnbills]

As a sec trans expert, lemme ask you: I've now seen maybe three sample essays where the secured transaction issue comes up as a potential defense for a trespass claim during a self-help repo man situation. Fair to say this is a good fact pattern to focus my somewhat narrow study of the subject?

Welcome input from all you kiddos who are good at sec trans

All you need to know about self help is that it's okay to repossess so long as the action doesn't tend to breach the peace. "tend to breach of peace" is kind of hard to nail down. Basically, you can't do it at night. If you get caught you should probably get off the property. If you are confronted by the owner and an argument ensues (especially if the owner has a weapon) then you really need to get off the property.

I've actually never considered whether a repo is also a trespass, I would guess there's an exception or a privilege. It never came up in my class.

[cooperlaserpup]

As a sec trans expert, lemme ask you: I've now seen maybe three sample essays where the secured transaction issue comes up as a potential defense for a trespass claim during a self-help repo man situation. Fair to say this is a good fact pattern to focus my somewhat narrow study of the subject?

Welcome input from all you kiddos who are good at sec trans

All you need to know about self help is that it's okay to repossess so long as the action doesn't tend to breach the peace. "tend to breach of peace" is kind of hard to nail down. Basically, you can't do it at night. If you get caught you should probably get off the property. If you are confronted by the owner and an argument ensues (especially if the owner has a weapon) then you really need to get off the property.

I've actually never considered whether a repo is also a trespass, I would guess there's an exception or a privilege. It never came up in my class.

It is one of the past released essays for NY so it has been rehashed in several examples. basically it is repo gone salty, involving the repo man (with a criminal assault record for engaging in the same behavior) coming onto the property and trying to drag the guy out of his car, injuring him in the process. You are supposed to identify all claims, including battery, negligent hiring, and trespass. In the trespass answer you are supposed to discuss the fact that in a secured transaction you have this right to repossess and what the breach of the peace is. Basically they want you to say this might otherwise be a defense but once the owner instructed him to leave he no longer had a right to enter and it becomes trespass at that point. As a defense attorney, this makes complete sense to me because it is in my world of claims and defenses. Since I've seen it come up so many times I wondered if it is a common application of sec trans knowledge, but perhaps it is just popular since it is from a released essay. If they would just be so kind as to use this exact fact pattern I think I have the answer memorized at this point...

gracias!

[redblueyellow]

How do you stop overcomplicating things? My worst MBE subject by far is Torts. I'm lucky to get maybe 50%. I started off getting 70-80% right in Torts and it's been a steady decline. My best subjects are Evidence and Contracts, perhaps because the classes I took on those were actually dedicated to the rules and how the law is actually applied, whereas my Torts class was largely intellectual circle jerks about rationales and policies. Should I keep banging out Torts MBE questions and hope to figure out the system, or just give it up and learn law in the subjects there is still law for me to learn?

Interesting; torts is probably one of my best subjects for the MBE. Completely suck at Evidence like no other, though.

If I were you, the easiest way to "learn" torts is just to memorize the different torts/negligence/liability. Then hope and pray that something you've memorized is an MBE/essay question.

[underthirty]

.

[cooperlaserpup]

How do you stop overcomplicating things? My worst MBE subject by far is Torts. I'm lucky to get maybe 50%. I started off getting 70-80% right in Torts and it's been a steady decline. My best subjects are Evidence and Contracts, perhaps because the classes I took on those were actually dedicated to the rules and how the law is actually applied, whereas my Torts class was largely intellectual circle jerks about rationales and policies. Should I keep banging out Torts MBE questions and hope to figure out the system, or just give it up and learn law in the subjects there is still law for me to learn?

Interesting; torts is probably one of my best subjects for the MBE. Completely suck at Evidence like no other, though.

If I were you, the easiest way to "learn" torts is just to memorize the different torts/negligence/liability. Then hope and pray that something you've memorized is an MBE/essay question.

I wish I could offer help on torts. Its one of the ones that I coast by on feeling out the question. But I think the advice here is good- get the elements cold to the extent possible for intentional torts. learn the difference between contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and modified comparative negligence. When all else fails, use common sense and answer the question with what seems fair. Kind of like my advice with crim law questions- when in doubt, just go with murder

But also remember that if you are getting 50% on torts and 70-80 on other subjects your overall MBE score will be just fine. When I passed a July bar is was scoring in the 50s for property and often contracts but scoring in the 70s-80s and evidence and crim. I ended up with a 148 and passed the bar. You should be just fine getting 50% in your weakest subject.

[ilovetypos]

Can anyone tell me why accomplice liability doesn't constitute a specific intent crime?

[a male human]

Can anyone tell me why accomplice liability doesn't constitute a specific intent crime?

Isn't it a SI crime?

[YibanRen]

Can anyone tell me why accomplice liability doesn't constitute a specific intent crime?

Isn't it a SI crime?

Kind of, but it is easier to remember it in its own unique category of liability: a "requisite intent crime," I thikn this is for two reasons: the first is that the two specific intent defenses are/may not be available (unreasonable mistake of material fact and voluntary intoxication), and the other is that in some states the mens rea is not specific intent that the crime be committed, it may just be that you performed one of the three necessary acts: aiding, encouraging, or advising.

Regardless, none of this matters, just remember:

Students Can Always Fake A Laugh, Even For Ridiculous Bar Facts. Solicitation, Conspiracy, Attempt, First Degree Murder, Assault (SI assault, not attempted battery), Embezzlement, False Presences, Robbery, Burglary, Fraud. These are the specific intent crimes for purposes of the two extra defenses/essays.

[YibanRen]

Question though. With impleader, two questions:

1) IF you are a D, and you want to bring a 3PD into the case, you need either FQ, Supplemental, or Diversity right? So, if the original claim was based upon diversity jurisdiction, the new claim between the D and the 3PD will need to show diversity of citizenship (because it isn't going to get federal question), or supplemental fails.

2) After the 3PD is impled into a diversity case, everyone can sue everyone, as long as 1) it is based on the same T/O (likely), and diversity is met (so look out for a P and a 3PD from the same state, cause this will likely kill some permissive counterclaim down the line), or 2) if not based on the same T/O, all of the SMJ requirements have to be met (e.g., if an impled 3PD wants to sue plaintiff over killing his dog in a patent litigation case, they need to be diverse, and that dog needs to be worth 75k+).

[fslexcduck]

I THINK none of that is right?

The way I remember supplemental jurisdiction generally is to think of what we're trying to incentivize. Usually it's about aggregating all of the claims from the same transaction for judicial economy if it's practical, which is why AIC is usually waived, but diversity is not because it's too important.

But with impleader, we're trying to avoid having to have a separate contribution claim as between defendant and 3rd party defendant only (for judicial economy purposes) and we REALLY want to encourage it. So when a D impleads a 3PD, I'm pretty sure you don't need anything as long as it's the same transaction. I think you don't even need diversity.

That being said, I don't think there is ANY supplemental J for a P against a 3PD. That's not why we have impleader practice in the first place, so we don't care about making it easier for P to bring claims against 3PD. What that means is you need everything for independent SMJ, including diversity+AIC or federal question J. You also aren't even allowed to bring claims that don't arise out of the same transaction. We don't care about making it easier for these people.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

[minnbills]

Anyone have access to a civ pro bar outline they'd be willing to share? My materials don't cover it and I only have my outlines from school.

[ilovetypos]

1. If the claim against the 3PD arises from the same common nucleus of operative fact, the court will have supplemental jurisdiction, regardless of whether there is diversity.

2. If the original action is diversity, a cross-claim (against co-party) may be asserted regardless of whether it has diversity itself through supplemental jurisdiction as long as it's the same T/O. However, supplemental jurisdiction can't be exercised by the original P over impleaded parties, so you'd need diversity and the amount in controversy between the P and the 3PD.

[fslexcduck]

you need all of that for P vs 3PD PLUS it needs to be same T/O. A P can never bring a claim against a 3PD if it isn't the same T/O. Just like cross-claims. That's the part I usually forget.