July 2016 California Bar Exam Forum

[Zaizei]

Why would they give you the fact that the easement did decrease the land value in $5000 if they didn't want you to talk about equitable servitude and touching and concerning the land, as it applies when you want to restrain someone from doing something in his land or made him comply or do something?

By the way, I said that the easement was not enforceable against Polly because it didn't make the land more useful or valuable, although she had actual and inquiry notice of it.

[OutoftheWoods]

^
I used it to calculate damages. We didn't HAVE to figure damages, but I figured what the heck.

[sssnuggles]

that stream of commerce tho..

No such thing as "stream of commerce" anymore.

General JDX: where the defendant "is at home"

so general jdx is only where a citizen is domiciled or a corp has its inc. or ppb. New rules as of last year case law..... Rich Freer is pissed about it and already wrote a law review article on it:

Some Specific Concerns with the New General Jurisdiction
15 Nev. L.J. 1161 (2014-2015)

[bnghle234]

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

yeah, i think the facts were unclear on whether the company ever sold the snacks in CA. But most likely they were, unless the girl brought the snacks in personally from germany. That seems highly unlikely, so I argued both but assumed the german company sold the snacks in CA and thus minimum contacts met.

[bnghle234]

^
I used it to calculate damages. We didn't HAVE to figure damages, but I figured what the heck.

that's what i did, and i think that's why they put that $5,000 figure there

[Spartan_Alum_12]

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!

I feel like that about the last one and kind of feel like shit about the PT. Always something with this exam.

[sssnuggles]

Why would they give you the fact that the easement did decrease the land value in $5000 if they didn't want you to talk about equitable servitude and touching and concerning the land, as it applies when you want to restrain someone from doing something in his land or made him comply or do something?

By the way, I said that the easement was not enforceable against Polly because it didn't make the land more useful or valuable, although she had actual and inquiry notice of it.

Yeah. I agree.... No such thing as a Red Herring on a bar exam.... However, I saw PURE easement... She saw him on the land, AND could have discovered his presence through looking through a grantor grantee index. While he did wait a while to record.... He still recorded PRIOR to her 2012 investigation. So if she look for the easement, she would see it recorded.

I just dont understand the 2012 -> 2014 gap. No consideration was paid... PLUS it said that the seller executed the written agreement. I actually threw in a discussion about possible lapse on that because there was an agreement, but no one paid anything, so... that 12' agreement lapsed and a new 14' agreement was formed and she could not sue for breach of K because deed was the document to be sued on BUT she was on notice of the in gross water co. easement. so too bad so sad. Stop being a baby Polly. u get nothing.



P.S. ----> College kid going to a San Francisco Music Festival.... This guy went to Outside Lands!

[macandcheese32]

College kid went to outside lands and ate some candy laced with German shrooms.

woooooo.

I'm so frickin tired right now.

[Spartan_Alum_12]

College kid went to outside lands and ate some candy laced with German shrooms.

woooooo.

I'm so frickin tired right now.

LOL

[Sunny1211]

College kid went to outside lands and ate some candy laced with German shrooms.

woooooo.

I'm so frickin tired right now.

LOL

Mexican kid with a student visa that ate German shrooms and got injured in Norcal

[sssnuggles]

College kid went to outside lands and ate some candy laced with German shrooms.

woooooo.

I'm so frickin tired right now.

Germany... shrooms. makes more sense. The "too many marijuanas in the treats" didn't sound quite right. Thanks for clarifying... I hope the grader accepts marijuana instead of shrooms.


Also, I CAN'T believe I pulled the "Transitory Action Rule" out of nowhere.... In a California PI case, venue is proper where the injury arose.

[cleanhustle]

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."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

[2TimesTheCharm]

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."

I did the same thing as you guys, except I tried to throw in some CA law too and failed If that thing actually wanted FRCP, then 55 or 60 instead of 50 or 55

[sssnuggles]

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."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

I second guessed myself, but thought.... they didn't say Columbia, AND you would never ask a student to look at a State fact pattern where state law CAN be tested and say... just kidding, don't apply the actual rules that do indeed apply. But who knows..... If anyone ever says anything like "You know what... I am actually really dedicated about this" I will yell at them that they know NOTHING about ACTUAL DEDICATION

[Zaizei]

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."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

I answered using FRCP too, since the question didn't ask us to answer using CACP law.

[zipman1232]

delete

[Zaizei]

what did you all put down for the contracts question? Excuse for non performance mostly?

I analyzed anticipatory repudiation for both parties and found B in breach and D not. Gave termination to D and nothing to B in terms of damages.

[Spartan_Alum_12]

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."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

I answered using FRCP too, since the question didn't ask us to answer using CACP law.

edit: NVM

[Ibis305]

what did you all put down for the contracts question? Excuse for non performance mostly?

I analyzed anticipatory repudiation for both parties and found B in breach and D not. Gave termination to D and nothing to B in terms of damages.

Ditto. Anticipatory repudiation, B is screwed, and D discharged for impracticability.

[Sunny1211]

what did you all put down for the contracts question? Excuse for non performance mostly?

I analyzed anticipatory repudiation for both parties and found B in breach and D not. Gave termination to D and nothing to B in terms of damages.

Nothing to builder for consequentials... even though time was of the essence and D was put on notice of this at K formation..... D's performance was excused.

[wbeezy]

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.

Wouldn't the issue be who takes since the whole point of a race-notice/ notice statue is to protect a BFP? She wasn't a BFP and when there is no statue mentioned in a jurisdiction ...it's a race statute. She takes from anyone that fails to record.

[sssnuggles]

what did you all put down for the contracts question? Excuse for non performance mostly?

I analyzed anticipatory repudiation for both parties and found B in breach and D not. Gave termination to D and nothing to B in terms of damages.

Ditto. Anticipatory repudiation, B is screwed, and D discharged for impracticability.

Well there was definitely legal impossibility. Thats why the law was in the fact pattern.

BUT there was no anticipatory repudiation. Dirk said "i don't know when I can begin. Then Builder terminated. The statement by Dirk was not unequivocal. It was "I don't know when" not a "I will not do it" Also consider that the contract was for performance to be completed by September 1. There was no statement that he wouldn't be able to complete by then.

[clown77]

'

[sssnuggles]

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.

Wouldn't the issue be who takes since the whole point of a race-notice/ notice statue is to protect a BFP? She wasn't a BFP and when there is no statue mentioned in a jurisdiction ...it's a race statute. She takes from anyone that fails to record.

What is all this race/notice stuff? She was trying to say that there was no easement. The easement was recorded. She also SAW HIM. Inquiry notice of a reasonably prudent person investigating the property...

[superabogadisima]

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."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

I answered using FRCP too, since the question didn't ask us to answer using CACP law.

For a minimum competency exam, they sure try to mind F you.

OF COURSE IT WAS CA. It did have federal analysis of course as well but everything happened in the Superior Court of California there is no way that you could analyze it without bringing CA law, there was no diversity (<$50,000), no fed qs so..... how on earth do you analyze it without bringing up CA law?
I loved the mexican student who went to eat shrooms to a festival SF hehehe