BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[musicfor18]

The supplemental jurisdiction is what provides the court with subject matter jurisdiction. For example, suppose P sues D under diversity SMJ, and D impleads O on a theory of indemnification. If P wants to bring a claim against O, but P and O happen to be citizens of the same state, no SMJ arises under diversity, but the court can still hear the claim because it has supplemental jurisdiction if the claim by P against O arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the claim by P against D.

This isn't right. In your hypo, there would be no supplemental jurisdiction over this claim by P against O because it falls under one of the exclusions in the supplemental jurisdiction statute. In other words, a P can't just use supplemental jurisdiction to do what you couldn't do as a matter of normal diversity jurisdiction.

[3|ink]

The supplemental jurisdiction is what provides the court with subject matter jurisdiction. For example, suppose P sues D under diversity SMJ, and D impleads O on a theory of indemnification. If P wants to bring a claim against O, but P and O happen to be citizens of the same state, no SMJ arises under diversity, but the court can still hear the claim because it has supplemental jurisdiction if the claim by P against O arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the claim by P against D.

This isn't right. In your hypo, there would be no supplemental jurisdiction over this claim by P against O because it falls under one of the exclusions in the supplemental jurisdiction statute. In other words, a P can't just use supplemental jurisdiction to do what you couldn't do as a matter of normal diversity jurisdiction.

This is my understanding as well. P can't use supplemental to get around diversity of citizenship requirement, even if it arises from the same TO.

[3|ink]

Decided to abandon BarBri for the most part. The set up/schedule makes no sense to me. My plan:

1. Read long outlines/take additional notes on Critical Pass flashcards
2. Review flashcards
3. Drill Adaptibar questions/dumb BarBri question sets
4. Do the essays once I know the law

The lectures aren't doing a thing for me. Hopefully I pass.

I'm curious. How are the barbri questions dumb? Are they simply inferior to adaptibar? Does that mean adaptibar has harder questions?

I'm still on the fence about getting adaptibar.

[musicfor18]

This is my understanding as well. P can't use supplemental to get around diversity of citizenship requirement, even if it arises from the same TO.

To be precise, P can't use supplemental to get around the complete diversity requirement. Supplemental jurisdiction is allowed for a claim by P if there's complete diversity but the amount-in-controversy is not met. This would only come into play, of course, if there is at least one claim that satisfies the $75,000.01 minimum so that the court has original diversity jurisdiction before doing a supplemental jurisdiction analysis.

[3|ink]

This is my understanding as well. P can't use supplemental to get around diversity of citizenship requirement, even if it arises from the same TO.

To be precise, P can't use supplemental to get around the complete diversity requirement. Supplemental jurisdiction is allowed for a claim by P if there's complete diversity but the amount-in-controversy is not met.

Yeah I worded it funny. I forgot it's called "complete diversity" -- not diversity of citizenship.

[Danger Zone]

Whoops good catch

[Killingly]

Decided to abandon BarBri for the most part. The set up/schedule makes no sense to me. My plan:

1. Read long outlines/take additional notes on Critical Pass flashcards
2. Review flashcards
3. Drill Adaptibar questions/dumb BarBri question sets
4. Do the essays once I know the law

The lectures aren't doing a thing for me. Hopefully I pass.

I'm curious. How are the barbri questions dumb? Are they simply inferior to adaptibar? Does that mean adaptibar has harder questions?

I'm still on the fence about getting adaptibar.

I've heard from many past bar-takers that they are much harder and more complex than the actual MBE questions. Adaptibar uses actual past MBE questions (except for Civ Pro, since those haven't been released). Personally, I'd rather drill with real MBE questions and would feel strange walking into the test without having done any. Just me though.

[Kage3212]

Decided to abandon BarBri for the most part. The set up/schedule makes no sense to me. My plan:

1. Read long outlines/take additional notes on Critical Pass flashcards
2. Review flashcards
3. Drill Adaptibar questions/dumb BarBri question sets
4. Do the essays once I know the law

The lectures aren't doing a thing for me. Hopefully I pass.

I'm curious. How are the barbri questions dumb? Are they simply inferior to adaptibar? Does that mean adaptibar has harder questions?

I'm still on the fence about getting adaptibar.

Also, many barbri questions leave you with that "WTF is this answer choice" or "WTF I knew this, why did I get it wrong." With Adaptibar, if you have sufficient knowledge of the principles, you will know which answer choice is correct. There is no WTF feeling afterwards.

[rinkrat19]

Dammit, I miss so many points on essays because I skip over the biggest, broadest laws. Like "THE FOURTH FUCKING AMENDMENT PROTECTS CITIZENS FROM ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE..." I just go right to "for a traffic stop to be valid..." SO many points. Idiot.

[mushybrain]

Yeah, I think basically you stop just short of explaining to the grader that there exists a Constitution of these United States and then go from step 2. Or at least that seems to be how basic the sample answers get.

[akarenina]

I'm like 6 essays behind. I just don't feel comfortable writing the essays without a chance to review the material first... and I don't feel like I have a chance to review anything because there is just so much stuff.

I know, right? I haven't written ANY essays yet because of this. I don't see the point.

As a former TA I just want to play devil's advocate here and say that I always made my students do open book practice outlines/essays even though I knew for a fact they hadn't outlined or were familiar with the material. It does work and I think it really does help overall, at least in my experience. It's part of the process of getting familiar with the material and by doing it that way you also get in the habit of writing the answer in the specific way you are supposed to, so every single time you start with "the issue here is" and the broad rule statements, and put "In this case," or "Here," over and over, it drills it into your mind so that you don't even have to think much about it by the time you really do memorize the material and so you won't lose points on dumb things like not organizing your essay properly, not reading the call of the question first, missing a broad rule statement, etc. And by doing essays open-book you still have to spot issues, so by searching for the broad issues and narrow issues in the materials and outlines that's helping you conceptualize and practice issue spotting, learn common ways they test things, and if you miss huge things you can be sure you will never make those mistakes again. Obviously to each his own, but open-book practice exams are one of the best ways to actually memorize the material and nail down your formatting as you learn rather than waiting until you are convinced you know the material to spend time tweaking answers to be perfect format wise. But again, to each his own!

[kykiske]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting wildly inconsistent scores on the MBE practice sets.

For instance, I did two Real Property sets today. On the first one, I got 13/18 (72%); on the second, I got 6/18 (33%).

That discrepancy shows up in other subjects too. In Contracts, I once got 14/18 (77%) on one set and 4/18 (22%) on another.

[3|ink]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting wildly inconsistent scores on the MBE practice sets.

For instance, I did two Real Property sets today. On the first one, I got 13/18 (72%); on the second, I got 6/18 (33%).

That discrepancy shows up in other subjects too. In Contracts, I once got 14/18 (77%) on one set and 4/18 (22%) on another.

Are these the sets that they offer online? I forget what they're called.

I have noticed that the first is easier, the second is harder, and them third is in between.

[Calicakes]

Can someone please explain horizontal and vertical privity to me in the context of a covenant? For some reason, I'm not grasping this concept.

thanks

[murray18]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting wildly inconsistent scores on the MBE practice sets.

For instance, I did two Real Property sets today. On the first one, I got 13/18 (72%); on the second, I got 6/18 (33%).

That discrepancy shows up in other subjects too. In Contracts, I once got 14/18 (77%) on one set and 4/18 (22%) on another.

Thats too weird for words. I just got 72% and 38% on the first two property assignments. I have no explanation, except that the second set seemed to be much trickier.

Edit: I just looked at my overall results, and I got 100% of the intro questions right, but only 25% of the advanced questions right. So I guess the explanation is just that the second set was much harder.

[kykiske]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm getting wildly inconsistent scores on the MBE practice sets.

For instance, I did two Real Property sets today. On the first one, I got 13/18 (72%); on the second, I got 6/18 (33%).

That discrepancy shows up in other subjects too. In Contracts, I once got 14/18 (77%) on one set and 4/18 (22%) on another.

Thats too weird for words. I just got 72% and 38% on the first two property assignments. I have no explanation, except that the second set seemed to be much trickier.

Edit: I just looked at my overall results, and I got 100% of the intro questions right, but only 25% of the advanced questions right. So I guess the explanation is just that the second set was much harder.

Good to know I'm not the only one in the world that has this problem. I'm confident that over the next few weeks, we'll sharpen our MBE scores

Can someone please explain horizontal and vertical privity to me in the context of a covenant? For some reason, I'm not grasping this concept.

thanks

The chart on page 60 of the Real Property Lecture Handout really helped me understand horizontal and vertical privity.

In short terms, the horizontal privity is the relationship between the original parties. Vertical privity is the relationship between the original party and the successor.

In reference to the chart, the relationship between A & B is analyzed as one for "horizontal privity." The relationship between A and A-1 is analyzed as one for "vertical privity." So too with the relationship between B and B-1.

[musicfor18]

Can someone please explain horizontal and vertical privity to me in the context of a covenant? For some reason, I'm not grasping this concept.

thanks

I'll try, If anyone thinks I got any of this wrong, please let me know. As a warning, this goes way beyond what was mentioned in the lecture, but I think the lecture didn't go into enough detail.

First of all, the questions of horizontal privity and vertical privity are only relevant when you need to determine whether a real covenant "runs with the land." If it "runs with the land," that means subsequent owners can enforce the covenant/have to be burdened by it. Another way of thinking of this is: When does a contractual promise become a property right? Contractual promises won't run with the land, only property rights.

Second, you have to analyze the "running" question separately for the benefit of the covenant and the burden of the covenant.

Third, horizontal privity is required only for determining whether the burden runs with the land (not necessary for the benefit).

Fourth, what is horizontal privity? It's a confusing property relationship between the original covenanting parties. Horizontal privity is present when, at the time the covenant was made between them, the two original parties shared some interest in the land independent of the covenant. Examples of when there is horizontal privity: (1) When a covenant is made in a deed between grantor-grantee; (2) When a covenant is made while one of the original parties had an easement on the other party's land; (3) When a covenant is made during a landlord-tenant relationship; or (4) When neighbors shared a common driveway and made some kind of covenant about that driveway. Examples of what is not sufficient for horizontal privity: (1) A simple agreement between neighbors, where neither had any interest in the other's land. E.g., you enter a contract with your neighbor promising never to have dogs on your property. Even if that contract is binding between you and your neighbor, it won't run with the land, meaning if you neighbor sells his property to someone else, that subsequent owner won't be able to enforce the promise about dogs. (2) When a promise is made after land is conveyed (because, in that case, the grantor and grantee didn't share any independent interest in the land at the time the covenant was made.

Fifth, what is vertical privity? It's a less confusing property relationship between a covenanting party and its successor in interest (i.e., the one he transfers it to). It's analyzed a bit differently when you're looking at the burden vs. the benefit. For the burden to run, the original covenanting party has to transfer his entire estate to the successor in interest. If he does, there's vertical privity. If he transfers less than his entire estate, there's no vertical privity. E.g., If the original burdened covenanting party had fee simple, but transfers only a life estate, there's vertical privity. This means that the original benefitting covenanting party can't enforce the covenant against the successor to the burden. If you're analyzing whether the benefit runs, then vertical privity is much more relaxed. There's vertical privity even if the original party transfers a lesser estate. One more thing to know about vertical privity is that it never exists if the "successor in interest" acquired that interest by adverse possession.

Sixth, remember that you might not always need to analyze both the benefit and the burden. The only time you need to do that is if both the burdened land and the benefitted land have been transferred by the original covenanting parties. So, if A deeds Blackacre to B with a covenant that "B will not use the land for commercial purposes," and then A sells his land to C. Here, you'd only need to analyze whether the benefit runs, because the burden is still in the hands of an original covenanting party. But if B later sells his land to D, then C would only be able to enforce against D if the burden also runs with the land.

[rickgrimes69]

Decided to abandon BarBri for the most part. The set up/schedule makes no sense to me. My plan:

1. Read long outlines/take additional notes on Critical Pass flashcards
2. Review flashcards
3. Drill Adaptibar questions/dumb BarBri question sets
4. Do the essays once I know the law

The lectures aren't doing a thing for me. Hopefully I pass.

I'm curious. How are the barbri questions dumb? Are they simply inferior to adaptibar? Does that mean adaptibar has harder questions?

I'm still on the fence about getting adaptibar.

Also, many barbri questions leave you with that "WTF is this answer choice" or "WTF I knew this, why did I get it wrong." With Adaptibar, if you have sufficient knowledge of the principles, you will know which answer choice is correct. There is no WTF feeling afterwards.

This might have sold it for me. "WTF" is my reaction to most of Barbri's questions.

[kmp127]

I'm assigned Counseller as lecturer for Civ Pro next week - should I skip him and do Freer instead? Anyone had this with him yet?

[myrtlewinston]

I'm assigned Counseller as lecturer for Civ Pro next week - should I skip him and do Freer instead? Anyone had this with him yet?

I liked Freer's lecture. He made Civ Pro understandable.

[MPTPWZ1026]

Decided to abandon BarBri for the most part. The set up/schedule makes no sense to me. My plan:

1. Read long outlines/take additional notes on Critical Pass flashcards
2. Review flashcards
3. Drill Adaptibar questions/dumb BarBri question sets
4. Do the essays once I know the law

The lectures aren't doing a thing for me. Hopefully I pass.

I'm curious. How are the barbri questions dumb? Are they simply inferior to adaptibar? Does that mean adaptibar has harder questions?

I'm still on the fence about getting adaptibar.

Also, many barbri questions leave you with that "WTF is this answer choice" or "WTF I knew this, why did I get it wrong." With Adaptibar, if you have sufficient knowledge of the principles, you will know which answer choice is correct. There is no WTF feeling afterwards.

This might have sold it for me. "WTF" is my reaction to most of Barbri's questions.

Same here. I do the Barbri sets, but I hate them. In every single MBE subject, the lecturers tell you what's going to be heavily tested and to know the general rules. Then the MPQs test you on some completely random exception that wasn't in either the lecture notes or the CMR.

I just finished property, and the worst part of it was knowing that RAP is 1-2 questions on the bar, but then still having to struggle through 10+ in the questions.

[Redamon1]

I'm assigned Counseller as lecturer for Civ Pro next week - should I skip him and do Freer instead? Anyone had this with him yet?

I liked Freer's lecture. He made Civ Pro understandable.

Agreed. Freer was solid, though part of what's good is his handout. Not sure if you can access Freer's handout if you've been assigned another lecturer...

[3|ink]

Same here. I do the Barbri sets, but I hate them. In every single MBE subject, the lecturers tell you what's going to be heavily tested and to know the general rules. Then the MPQs test you on some completely random exception that wasn't in either the lecture notes or the CMR.

I just finished property, and the worst part of it was knowing that RAP is 1-2 questions on the bar, but then still having to struggle through 10+ in the questions.

I just got done with 2 sets of the real property MPQs and I'm so fucking mad right now. Those questions were infuriating.

[rinkrat19]

I'm assigned Counseller as lecturer for Civ Pro next week - should I skip him and do Freer instead? Anyone had this with him yet?

I liked Freer's lecture. He made Civ Pro understandable.

Agreed. Freer was solid, though part of what's good is his handout. Not sure if you can access Freer's handout if you've been assigned another lecturer...

Even if they could access it, it wouldn't do any good because it's mostly questions that get answered by the stuff you write in as he talks.

[Loud Kiddington]

Thinking about picking up some MBE questions to practice with in addition to BarBri's. Does Emanuel's MBE book suffice? It says it has 550, or should I go with Adaptibar (seems like overkill with like 1700)?