NY July 2016 Thread Forum

[mvp99]

[whitecollar23]

Don't overreact. The overwhelming consensus was that the MEE was ridiculous and that the first MPT was impossible to organize. Scale will likely be upward!

Omg I don't know u but I luv u bc this is me exactly I felt SO dumb that I couldn't organize it

I was actually bugging out for the first half of that MPT trying to figure out how to organize it. Eventually I just said "fuck it!" and started writing the shit out of that MPT, and hoped to hell that I organized it well enough, haha.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Without discussing the substance of it, regarding that kinda radical action the one party wanted to take with SecTranx. Are they allowed to do that?

No.

That was the only part of that ST essay I was really able to answer though.

Why not? Isn't the "radical action" explicitly authorized by Article 9?

[whitecollar23]

Without discussing the substance of it, regarding that kinda radical action the one party wanted to take with SecTranx. Are they allowed to do that?

No.

That was the only part of that ST essay I was really able to answer though.

Why not? Isn't the "radical action" explicitly authorized by Article 9?

Not if it's considered "repossession." That was what I wasn't sure about.

[mvp99]

OK GUYS!!!

KNOW THAT IF YOU SCORE MORE THAN 150 TOMORROW, YOU WILL DEFINITELY PASS!!! WE CAN DO THIS!

[LionelHutzJD]

Without discussing the substance of it, regarding that kinda radical action the one party wanted to take with SecTranx. Are they allowed to do that?

No.

That was the only part of that ST essay I was really able to answer though.

Why not? Isn't the "radical action" explicitly authorized by Article 9?

Wouldn't it be a breach of the peace which isn't allowed when a debtor is in default?

I could be 100% wrong. (probably am)

[whitecollar23]

Without discussing the substance of it, regarding that kinda radical action the one party wanted to take with SecTranx. Are they allowed to do that?

No.

That was the only part of that ST essay I was really able to answer though.

Why not? Isn't the "radical action" explicitly authorized by Article 9?

Wouldn't it be a breach of the peace which isn't allowed when a debtor is in default?

I could be 100% wrong. (probably am)

If it's considered a "repossession," then yes, it's considered a breach of the peace, even though he had permission to be there.

[a mouse duh]

Without discussing the substance of it, regarding that kinda radical action the one party wanted to take with SecTranx. Are they allowed to do that?

No.

That was the only part of that ST essay I was really able to answer though.

Why not? Isn't the "radical action" explicitly authorized by Article 9?

Wouldn't it be a breach of the peace which isn't allowed when a debtor is in default?

I could be 100% wrong. (probably am)

The vagueness is confusing me, but this may be relevant:

"A secured creditor may also disable a piece of equipment and then dispose of the equipment through a sale with the equipment remaining on the debtor’s premises. In fact, a secured creditor may be able to preserve the value of the equipment by disabling the equipment.

It is important to note that this remedy is only available to secured creditors that have a security interest in equipment. For example, a secured creditor can disable and dispose of a forklift used in warehouse operations, on the debtor’s property, but not a forklift held for resale, and thus constituting inventory, of an equipment sales business."

[Rahviveh]

I don't see how that was a repossession. I don't have a dog in this fight since I didn't know the equipment rule anyways

[MCFC]

Ugh I told myself I wasn't going to do this, but so long as we're talking about it, who was the winner in the other part of the ST essay?

[LionelHutzJD]

Anddddd i'm logging off.

[whitecollar23]

I don't see how that was a repossession. I don't have a dog in this fight since I didn't know the equipment rule anyways

Based on that quote, it wasn't repossession. I qualified my answer saying that I'm answering this with the assumption it was repossession. No way in hell I would know that disabling law. Never even touched it.

[mvp99]

[whitecollar23]

Ugh I told myself I wasn't going to do this, but so long as we're talking about it, who was the winner in the other part of the ST essay?

Depends on whether the perfection of the fixtures PMSI was proper. Pretty sure it had to state that it was fixtures and be filed in the real estate office. If not, it was perfected early enough.

[Avian]

Without discussing the substance of it, regarding that kinda radical action the one party wanted to take with SecTranx. Are they allowed to do that?

No.

That was the only part of that ST essay I was really able to answer though.

Why not? Isn't the "radical action" explicitly authorized by Article 9?

Wouldn't it be a breach of the peace which isn't allowed when a debtor is in default?

I could be 100% wrong. (probably am)

The vagueness is confusing me, but this may be relevant:

"A secured creditor may also disable a piece of equipment and then dispose of the equipment through a sale with the equipment remaining on the debtor’s premises. In fact, a secured creditor may be able to preserve the value of the equipment by disabling the equipment.

It is important to note that this remedy is only available to secured creditors that have a security interest in equipment. For example, a secured creditor can disable and dispose of a forklift used in warehouse operations, on the debtor’s property, but not a forklift held for resale, and thus constituting inventory, of an equipment sales business."

The Barbri mini outline has a one sentence bit about repossession saying it can't be a breach of the peace......

[anacharsis]

Good to see other people thought it was repossession. At least if we're wrong, we're wrong together.

Wait, wasn't that the RNC slogan this year?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Without discussing the substance of it, regarding that kinda radical action the one party wanted to take with SecTranx. Are they allowed to do that?

No.

That was the only part of that ST essay I was really able to answer though.

Why not? Isn't the "radical action" explicitly authorized by Article 9?

Wouldn't it be a breach of the peace which isn't allowed when a debtor is in default?

I could be 100% wrong. (probably am)

If it's considered a "repossession," then yes, it's considered a breach of the peace, even though he had permission to be there.

Not all repossession is breach of the peace.

(Not that it matters at this point. If you discussed something about the issue, you're fine. Bigger fish to fry.)

[MCFC]

I thought the last question was family law at first. Then just boring Civ Pro. Though a divorce is probably somewhere in the future.

[whitecollar23]

Without discussing the substance of it, regarding that kinda radical action the one party wanted to take with SecTranx. Are they allowed to do that?

No.

That was the only part of that ST essay I was really able to answer though.

Why not? Isn't the "radical action" explicitly authorized by Article 9?

Wouldn't it be a breach of the peace which isn't allowed when a debtor is in default?

I could be 100% wrong. (probably am)

If it's considered a "repossession," then yes, it's considered a breach of the peace, even though he had permission to be there.

Not all repossession is breach of the peace.

(Not that it matters at this point. If you discussed something about the issue, you're fine. Bigger fish to fry.)

ALL repossession the entails *entering the debtor's property* is considered breach of the peace.

[shouldershoulders]

I filled in my answer to MPT #2 in the space for MPT #1. I'm freaking out because I don't want to fail the bar because I entered my answers in the wrong order. They gave me MPT #2 as the top booklet and I didn't see it was labeled with a number. When I asked the proctor she said it was fine and a lot of people do this, but I don't know if that is reliable.

Did anyone else do this?

wait, which one was which? freaking out about this now

[whitecollar23]

I filled in my answer to MPT #2 in the space for MPT #1. I'm freaking out because I don't want to fail the bar because I entered my answers in the wrong order. They gave me MPT #2 as the top booklet and I didn't see it was labeled with a number. When I asked the proctor she said it was fine and a lot of people do this, but I don't know if that is reliable.

Did anyone else do this?

wait, which one was which? freaking out about this now

Green was #1. Purple was #2.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I spent a very long time on the last partnership question.

Just stared at it going "there...there has to be more things happening than that."

[Br3v]

I need to study more

[shouldershoulders]

I filled in my answer to MPT #2 in the space for MPT #1. I'm freaking out because I don't want to fail the bar because I entered my answers in the wrong order. They gave me MPT #2 as the top booklet and I didn't see it was labeled with a number. When I asked the proctor she said it was fine and a lot of people do this, but I don't know if that is reliable.

Did anyone else do this?

wait, which one was which? freaking out about this now

Green was #1. Purple was #2.

oh damn, I think I did them in the wrong order too

[Br3v]

Don't sweat if you switched orders