Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[j1987]

WHY DOES SHERMAN CLARK SPEND SO MUCH TIME WITH HIS HEAD FACING AWAY FROM THE CAMERA?! WHAT IS GOING ON TO HIS RIGHT?! IS HE FALSELY IMPRISONED?!

I don't know why, but this made me laugh so hard.

I was wondering the same thing!! Who is he talking to?!

[071816]

I'm at 15%. This feels like a really shitty RPG game!

Funny you should mention that, i just bought a 3ds and fire emblem 30 minutes ago, first game i bought in like 5 years. I need something to do for 30 minutes or so when i'm taking a break.

Hopefully, that'll mean i'll feel like i'm playing 2 rpg's.

I wonder who the Themis final boss is. He/she better be Bowser caliber.

[Tanicius]

Can I get confirmation here? This screenshot of my graded essay page means that the grader has not submitted a response yet, correct?

[Tanicius]

Also, substantive property question for you guys.

Marketable title. I don't get it. What I don't get is, it says that encumberances like easements and covenants apparently make the property a violation of the warranty of marketable title, no matter what. That can't be true right? You don't get to rescind a contract just because the house and land you're buying have an easement letting some guy walk across your yard, right? Really, the point I'm missing is that this warranty of marketable title only applies to encumberances that are not mentioned in the contract you signed already. Right?

To illustrate:

Situation A: I sell you my house. I neglect to say in the contract that there is a convenant to keep the house painted white. This presents a reasonable risk of litigation. You find about it after you sign my contract that is shady on these details, so you go to court and get the contract rescinded.

Situation B: I'm selling you a house. I tell you in both person and on the contract that we're part of a homeowner's association that requires the house to be kept painted white. That is NOT a violation of the warranty of marketable title, and you are NOT allowed to rescind the contract.

Am I understanding this correctly?

[Genuine4ps]

17%

Is that on track?

If not, could someone who is on track post their progress?

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

Can I get confirmation here? This screenshot of my graded essay page means that the grader has not submitted a response yet, correct?

Yep, it doesn't look like yours has been graded. Mine has a "graded" tab after the "submitted" tab and it says June 2nd (when it was graded) and then to the right of the "graded" tab is a "details" tab where I can click on VIEW GRADE to see all of the details. Also, when your practice essay has been graded, you'll see a graph below which plots your grade against the average grade of everyone else so you can see how you're doing compared to everyone...

I thought I read somewhere that the turn around time is 2 days, unless we turn it in late - and then it's 4 days...

(CALIFORNIA BAR)

[071816]

Can I get confirmation here? This screenshot of my graded essay page means that the grader has not submitted a response yet, correct?

[img]graded essay image

I believe so. When mine was graded, the date appeared in the graded column and I got an email saying it had been graded. I submitted my essay on Sunday and got it back within the hour. I was really surprised at the quick turnaround.

[Evaly]

17%

Is that on track?

If not, could someone who is on track post their progress?

On track could be different for each state. I am curious what "on track" is for CA.

[Evaly]

Can I get confirmation here? This screenshot of my graded essay page means that the grader has not submitted a response yet, correct?

[img]graded essay image

I believe so. When mine was graded, the date appeared in the graded column and I got an email saying it had been graded. I submitted my essay on Sunday and got it back within the hour. I was really surprised at the quick turnaround.

That is really quick. I submitted my first essay on time and it took 3 days for my grader to get it back to me.

[071816]

Also, substantive property question for you guys.

Marketable title. I don't get it. What I don't get is, it says that encumberances like easements and covenants apparently make the property a violation of the warranty of marketable title, no matter what. That can't be true right? You don't get to rescind a contract just because the house and land you're buying have an easement letting some guy walk across your yard, right? Really, the point I'm missing is that this warranty of marketable title only applies to encumberances that are not mentioned in the contract you signed already. Right?

To illustrate:

Situation A: I sell you my house. I neglect to say in the contract that there is a convenant to keep the house painted white. This presents a reasonable risk of litigation. You find about it after you sign my contract that is shady on these details, so you go to court and get the contract rescinded.

Situation B: I'm selling you a house. I tell you in both person and on the contract that we're part of a homeowner's association that requires the house to be kept painted white. That is NOT a violation of the warranty of marketable title, and you are NOT allowed to rescind the contract.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I believe you're understanding it correctly. I'm not sure about your examples specifically, but the covenant against encumbrances warrants only that there are no UNDISCLOSED ENCUMBRANCES on the property that COULD LIMIT ITS VALUE. Also you have to remember that the type of deed (general warranty, special warranty, quitclaim) makes a huge difference as to the amount of protection provided to a buyer.

Edit: oops here I'm talking about the covenant against encumbrances, which is different than what you're talking about. Pretty sure the gist of what we need to know for marketable title is just that ownership and possession of the property needs to be readily transferable (i.e. free from claims by outside parties). The "free from unreasonable risk of litigation" thing is confusing for me too actually.

[071816]

Can I get confirmation here? This screenshot of my graded essay page means that the grader has not submitted a response yet, correct?

[img]graded essay image

I believe so. When mine was graded, the date appeared in the graded column and I got an email saying it had been graded. I submitted my essay on Sunday and got it back within the hour. I was really surprised at the quick turnaround.

That is really quick. I submitted my first essay on time and it took 3 days for my grader to get it back to me.

Yea. I'm pretty sure my grader was on meth. The feedback was pretty crappy. It basically amounted to "you did a great job on this overall, but you missed this one thing." I was expecting it to be a bit more in depth.

[Tanicius]

I don't get why transferees are called "subject to" a mortgage that they actually owe no liability towards. Why would you call something "subject to" a thing, in order to say that they actually bear nothing towards it at all?

This causes even more confusion when the handout says stuff like this:

"Note 16: Absent statutory redemption, the purchaser of property at a foreclosure sale takes the property free and clear of any junior mortgage and subject to any senior mortgage."

What's even the difference at that point, if you're not liable for it either way? Is being "free and clear" just tantamount to being extra not liable?

[puttycake]

Also, substantive property question for you guys.

Marketable title. I don't get it. What I don't get is, it says that encumberances like easements and covenants apparently make the property a violation of the warranty of marketable title, no matter what. That can't be true right? You don't get to rescind a contract just because the house and land you're buying have an easement letting some guy walk across your yard, right? Really, the point I'm missing is that this warranty of marketable title only applies to encumberances that are not mentioned in the contract you signed already. Right?

To illustrate:

Situation A: I sell you my house. I neglect to say in the contract that there is a convenant to keep the house painted white. This presents a reasonable risk of litigation. You find about it after you sign my contract that is shady on these details, so you go to court and get the contract rescinded.

Situation B: I'm selling you a house. I tell you in both person and on the contract that we're part of a homeowner's association that requires the house to be kept painted white. That is NOT a violation of the warranty of marketable title, and you are NOT allowed to rescind the contract.

Am I understanding this correctly?

I think so. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think it's about reasonability (like whether a reasonable person would buy the house with this restriction and that encumbrance and whether the disclosure was sufficient).

I think there could be another wrinkle, maybe. In Situation B if the house is actually already blue and the person tells you that it has to be white, that might not be marketable title, because the house is already in violation of the covenant. So even if they tell you, it might still not be "marketable title" because it is currently violating a condition of the title. I could be misunderstanding that, though.

[puttycake]

I don't get why transferees are called "subject to" a mortgage that they actually owe no liability towards. Why would you call something "subject to" a thing, in order to say that they actually bear nothing towards it at all?

This causes even more confusion when the handout says stuff like this:

"Note 16: Absent statutory redemption, the purchaser of property at a foreclosure sale takes the property free and clear of any junior mortgage and subject to any senior mortgage."

What's even the difference at that point, if you're not liable for it either way? Is being "free and clear" just tantamount to being extra not liable?

No. I think it's that you buy the property subject to the mortgage, meaning the property still has a mortgage on it, it's just that you, Tanicius, can't be held personally liable for it. The property is still in hock.

[Tanicius]

I think so. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think it's about reasonability (like whether a reasonable person would buy the house with this restriction and that encumbrance and whether the disclosure was sufficient).

I think there could be another wrinkle, maybe. In Situation B if the house is actually already blue and the person tells you that it has to be white, that might not be marketable title, because the house is already in violation of the covenant. So even if they tell you, it might still not be "marketable title" because it is currently violating a condition of the title. I could be misunderstanding that, though.

Your interpretation makes a lot more sense, since the marketable title section of the handout makes absolutely no mention of disclosure. So, it's more that an easement or covenant could be an encumberance that would make the title unmarketable due to its litigation risk, rather than saying that all easements and covenants necessarily do make the title unmarketable.

[Tanicius]

No. You buy the property subject to the mortgage, meaning the property still has a mortgage on it, it's just that you, Tanicius, can't be held personally liable for it. The property is still in hock.

Alright, so let's break this down. This is an explanation I found online:

According to the All Business online business glossary, if you buy a house subject to mortgage, you do "not assume personal liability for the obligation" of the loan. You make an agreement with the seller that you will make the payments. If you don't make them, the lender may foreclose and sell the house, and may take legal action against the person who sold it to you to pay for any remaining mortgage. The lender can not take legal action action against you, but the person who sold you the house can.

So, when you're "subject to" a mortgage, you have to pay for the remaining mortgage payments, and the bank can come for the house if you fail to do so, but the person who originally took out the mortgage is the person who's going to be liable for any deficiencies once the house has gone through foreclosure.

[puttycake]

I think so. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think it's about reasonability (like whether a reasonable person would buy the house with this restriction and that encumbrance and whether the disclosure was sufficient).

I think there could be another wrinkle, maybe. In Situation B if the house is actually already blue and the person tells you that it has to be white, that might not be marketable title, because the house is already in violation of the covenant. So even if they tell you, it might still not be "marketable title" because it is currently violating a condition of the title. I could be misunderstanding that, though.

Your interpretation makes a lot more sense, since the marketable title section of the handout makes absolutely no mention of disclosure. So, it's more that an easement or covenant could be an encumberance that would make the title unmarketable due to its litigation risk, rather than saying that all easements and covenants necessarily do make the title unmarketable.

Yeah, I think if you had a long-standing easement and everyone is going along fine and you didn't put a fence up and try to sell the house and everyone knew there was this easement, etc., then you could still have marketable title.

[klbisho4]

18% coming in hot. I'm just sticking to the daily schedule. Glad to see everyone is at about the same place, kind of relieving.

[j1987]

17%

Is that on track?

If not, could someone who is on track post their progress?

I'm doing NY/NJ, and I started on the 27th - a week after their recommended date for NY/NJ. I've been following the daily tasks for the most part, but I started real property early, so it's been adjusting for that.. so i'm basically on track.

[Tanicius]

Have you ever played a complicated game like Settlors of Catan or Risk, and had a horrible time playing the game because your friend who "knows the rules" keeps inventing new rules whenever you do something important and keeps screwing you over?

That's what it feels like to do these practice MBE questions for Property. Half the questions I get wrong are because of things that simply were not taught. "Answer choice C is incorrect. While you normally would be right on this issue, there's a specific exception we never told you about that applies exactly precisely just right here but nowhere else, so fuck you."

[Kiwi917]

Have you ever played a complicated game like Settlors of Catan or Risk, and had a horrible time playing the game because your friend who "knows the rules" keeps inventing new rules whenever you do something important and keeps screwing you over?

That's what it feels like to do these practice MBE questions for Property. Half the questions I get wrong are because of things that simply were not taught. "Answer choice C is incorrect. While you normally would be right on this issue, there's a specific exception we never told you about that applies exactly precisely just right here but nowhere else, so fuck you."

I know what you mean. So far, this has been the one subject where a fairly thorough re-read of the long outline - at least the mortgage and deed stuff - gave me some decent gains on the MBE questions. Even then, there were a few things that really came out of nowhere. I have no idea how I'm going to remember it all for the real exam.

[Gotti]

I'm at 12%, whoops (NJ/NY bar)

[MinEMorris]

I agree. The process of bar prep has been a lot less straight-forward and orderly than I expected. I figured it would be a grind, and I knew it could be overwhelming, but I didn't think it would feel so scattered. I kind of feel like I'm floating down a river and grabbing as much "knowledge-driftwood" as I can along the way in the rapids, hoping I'll be able to hold on to enough to keep myself afloat in the end. Maybe it all starts to sort itself out in July.

This is a dumb and basic question, but what happens if you do a FS subject to condition subsequent but don't specify the right to reenter. E.g. "O to A provided that A use O as a farm" or something. Is it just considered a FSA because it's ambiguous?

[JJ556]

This is a dumb and basic question, but what happens if you do a FS subject to condition subsequent but don't specify the right to reenter. E.g. "O to A provided that A use O as a farm" or something. Is it just considered a FSA because it's ambiguous?

There are no dumb questions when it comes to bar prep. Prior to giving you my understanding, let me throw out the general disclaimer that I may not have a clue as to what I'm talking about, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

I think what you've described "O to A provided that A use [land] as a farm," is a Fee Simple Determinable. O maintains a possibility of reverter -- the land automatically reverts back to O if A doesn't use the land as a farm.

A fee simple subject to condition subsequent will actually state, I think, "O to A, but if the land isn't farmed, O may re-enter and re-take." In this instance O has a right of entry upon A's breach of the condition, and O must actually exercise his right to re-enter and re-take.

[puttycake]

This is a dumb and basic question, but what happens if you do a FS subject to condition subsequent but don't specify the right to reenter. E.g. "O to A provided that A use O as a farm" or something. Is it just considered a FSA because it's ambiguous?

I think so. I think it would then be viewed as a purpose rather than a condition.