Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[Gotti]

Have people completely abandoned reading the long outlines? It seems like such a time sink and an amount of information I will definitely not be able to retain for the bar itself . . .

Yeah what is everyone's take on this? I'm not sure if I should continue reading them

& re: the question I pasted earlier - like I said, I understand that it's C because you back into it. Just because you can back into it because all the other answers are clearly wrong doesn't make it a good question.

[klbisho4]

Have people completely abandoned reading the long outlines? It seems like such a time sink and an amount of information I will definitely not be able to retain for the bar itself . . .

Yeah what is everyone's take on this? I'm not sure if I should continue reading them

& re: the question I pasted earlier - like I said, I understand that it's C because you back into it. Just because you can back into it because all the other answers are clearly wrong doesn't make it a good question.

Spot on with that. The great thing about MBE questions is that they tell you the answer. It's staring you right in the face, all you have to do is know the definition of the rule. That's why I find some of these questions bad like you were saying. The answers aren't clear and there are 2 or 3 that look the same, but one is more specific than the other.

I had a torts one a few min ago that talked about:

"A fed B some cake that he knew B was allergic to for B's birthday. B got sick from the cake and had to go to the hospital. On the way to the hospital, ambulance driver suffered a heart attack and crashed the ambulance causing B to break his leg. If B sues A for his leg injuries will B recover?"

A. Yes, because A knew the cake was harmful or offensive to B.
B. Yes, because the ambulance driver was negligent.
C. No, because A could not reasonably be expected to foresee the leg injury to B.
D. No, because the ambulance driver's heart attack was a superceeding cause of the broken leg.

I picked "D" which is clearly correct because superceeding causes stop liability for A. And the suit was for the broken leg, not for the battery from the allergic reaction. They tell me I am wrong and that the correct answer is "A", because answer "D" is inapplicable in regards to A's intentional tort (his battery)... The lawsuit was for the leg injury! Not for the battery!

[themis513]

Can someone explain the below question to me?

Question ID:1415

Question

An owner owned Blackacre in fee simple, as the land records showed, when he contracted to sell Blackacre to a buyer. Two weeks later, the buyer paid the agreed price and received a warranty deed. A week thereafter, when neither the contract nor the deed had been recorded and while the owner remained in possession of Blackacre, a creditor properly filed her money judgment against the owner. She knew nothing of the buyer's interest. A statute in the jurisdiction provides: "Any judgment properly filed shall, for ten years from filing, be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered." The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." The creditor brought an appropriate action to enforce her lien against Blackacre in the buyer's hands. If the court decides for the buyer, it will most probably be because

Answers
the doctrine of equitable conversion applies.
the jurisdiction's recording act does not protect creditors.
the owner's possession gave the creditor constructive notice of the buyer's interest.
the buyer was a purchaser without notice.

The answer is B. Most people picked D. I picked A.

[klbisho4]

Can someone explain the below question to me?

Question ID:1415

Question

An owner owned Blackacre in fee simple, as the land records showed, when he contracted to sell Blackacre to a buyer. Two weeks later, the buyer paid the agreed price and received a warranty deed. A week thereafter, when neither the contract nor the deed had been recorded and while the owner remained in possession of Blackacre, a creditor properly filed her money judgment against the owner. She knew nothing of the buyer's interest. A statute in the jurisdiction provides: "Any judgment properly filed shall, for ten years from filing, be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered." The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." The creditor brought an appropriate action to enforce her lien against Blackacre in the buyer's hands. If the court decides for the buyer, it will most probably be because

Answers
the doctrine of equitable conversion applies.
the jurisdiction's recording act does not protect creditors.
the owner's possession gave the creditor constructive notice of the buyer's interest.
the buyer was a purchaser without notice.

The answer is B. Most people picked D. I picked A.

I haven't gotten to property yet, but I picked B. I picked it based solely on the recording act mentioned in the question. It confuses me the way its worded but from what I got out of it, is that a creditor can't enforce his lien against a buyer unless the buyer records their interest. And since buyer didn't record their interest, creditor couldn't seek to enforce the lien against them. What did the analysis of the question say about the answers?

[themis513]

Can someone explain the below question to me?

Question ID:1415

Question

An owner owned Blackacre in fee simple, as the land records showed, when he contracted to sell Blackacre to a buyer. Two weeks later, the buyer paid the agreed price and received a warranty deed. A week thereafter, when neither the contract nor the deed had been recorded and while the owner remained in possession of Blackacre, a creditor properly filed her money judgment against the owner. She knew nothing of the buyer's interest. A statute in the jurisdiction provides: "Any judgment properly filed shall, for ten years from filing, be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered." The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." The creditor brought an appropriate action to enforce her lien against Blackacre in the buyer's hands. If the court decides for the buyer, it will most probably be because

Answers
the doctrine of equitable conversion applies.
the jurisdiction's recording act does not protect creditors.
the owner's possession gave the creditor constructive notice of the buyer's interest.
the buyer was a purchaser without notice.

The answer is B. Most people picked D. I picked A.

I haven't gotten to property yet, but I picked B. I picked it based solely on the recording act mentioned in the question. It confuses me the way its worded but from what I got out of it, is that a creditor can't enforce his lien against a buyer unless the buyer records their interest. And since buyer didn't record their interest, creditor couldn't seek to enforce the lien against them. What did the analysis of the question say about the answers?

"Answer choice B is correct. This is a notice jurisdiction. The buyer did not record before the creditor filed her judgment, so the buyer would lose unless there was an exception for creditors. If the recording statute protects the creditor, then the creditor would prevail."

[duskfall]

Have people completely abandoned reading the long outlines? It seems like such a time sink and an amount of information I will definitely not be able to retain for the bar itself . . .

Yeah what is everyone's take on this? I'm not sure if I should continue reading them

& re: the question I pasted earlier - like I said, I understand that it's C because you back into it. Just because you can back into it because all the other answers are clearly wrong doesn't make it a good question.

Then what would be a good question? Do you expect every right answer to be spot on with the actual language? If it were that easy nobody would have a problem with this test. The fact is you're gonna see these type of questions/answers on the test. This type of answer choice shows up frequently on the actual bar. It would be a disservice to you if all the questions were "good" to your satisfaction. Learn from it and move on.

[Tanicius]

Have people completely abandoned reading the long outlines? It seems like such a time sink and an amount of information I will definitely not be able to retain for the bar itself . . .

Yeah what is everyone's take on this? I'm not sure if I should continue reading them

& re: the question I pasted earlier - like I said, I understand that it's C because you back into it. Just because you can back into it because all the other answers are clearly wrong doesn't make it a good question.

Spot on with that. The great thing about MBE questions is that they tell you the answer. It's staring you right in the face, all you have to do is know the definition of the rule. That's why I find some of these questions bad like you were saying. The answers aren't clear and there are 2 or 3 that look the same, but one is more specific than the other.

I had a torts one a few min ago that talked about:

"A fed B some cake that he knew B was allergic to for B's birthday. B got sick from the cake and had to go to the hospital. On the way to the hospital, ambulance driver suffered a heart attack and crashed the ambulance causing B to break his leg. If B sues A for his leg injuries will B recover?"

A. Yes, because A knew the cake was harmful or offensive to B.
B. Yes, because the ambulance driver was negligent.
C. No, because A could not reasonably be expected to foresee the leg injury to B.
D. No, because the ambulance driver's heart attack was a superceeding cause of the broken leg.

I picked "D" which is clearly correct because superceeding causes stop liability for A. And the suit was for the broken leg, not for the battery from the allergic reaction. They tell me I am wrong and that the correct answer is "A", because answer "D" is inapplicable in regards to A's intentional tort (his battery)... The lawsuit was for the leg injury! Not for the battery!

The correct answer is A because negligent conduct by rescuers is foreseeable when you batter someone. You're on the hook for the ambulance driver as well as malpractice by doctors. A true superseding cause would be something unforeseeable, like the ambulance driver getting out a baseball bat and hitting your leg with it, causing a broken leg that way. I agree the reasoning for A is shitty though. The reason given doesn't talk about foreseeability at all.

[themis513]

Another question where the explanation is losing me. C was the most popular answer and the one I chose. The explanation seems to be roundabout. Anyone have a better explanation?

Question ID:3147
Question
The owner of undeveloped land had his attorney prepare a deed transferring the land to his niece as a surprise. The uncle signed the deed and had his attorney record it. However, before the uncle delivered the deed to his niece, the two had a falling out. After the man’s death, the niece learned about the deed when it was found among her uncle’s papers. She transferred her interest in the land by quitclaim deed to a good faith buyer for valuable consideration. The buyer promptly recorded this deed. By will, the owner left his real property to a nephew. The recording statute in the applicable jurisdiction states: “Any conveyance of an interest in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is recorded.” Who owns the land?
Answers
The nephew, because he was the devisee of the owner’s real property.
The nephew, because the buyer’s interest in the land was obtained through a quitclaim deed.
The buyer, because the uncle’s deed to his niece was recorded.
The buyer, because the buyer gave valuable consideration for the niece’s interest.

Your Answer Choice: C

Rationale:
Answer choice A is correct. The uncle retained ownership of the land at his death because he never delivered the deed to his niece, and thus did not complete the gift. Accordingly, the land passed by will to his nephew. Answer choice B is incorrect because the property could have been transferred by quitclaim deed if the niece had owned it. The transfer of a real property interest through a quitclaim deed does not by itself place the transferee on notice as to a problem with the transferor’s ownership of the transferred property. Instead, a quitclaim deed merely limits the liability of the transferor. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although the recording of a deed generally protects a person who buys the property from the record owner, the recording of a deed does not validate an otherwise invalid transfer. Here, since the uncle did not complete the gift to his niece by delivering the deed to her, she did not obtain ownership of the land and therefore could not sell it to a third party. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although a good faith purchaser of real property from the record owner is generally protected from other claimants to the property, in this case the record owner never obtained ownership of the land.

[klbisho4]

Have people completely abandoned reading the long outlines? It seems like such a time sink and an amount of information I will definitely not be able to retain for the bar itself . . .

Yeah what is everyone's take on this? I'm not sure if I should continue reading them

& re: the question I pasted earlier - like I said, I understand that it's C because you back into it. Just because you can back into it because all the other answers are clearly wrong doesn't make it a good question.

Spot on with that. The great thing about MBE questions is that they tell you the answer. It's staring you right in the face, all you have to do is know the definition of the rule. That's why I find some of these questions bad like you were saying. The answers aren't clear and there are 2 or 3 that look the same, but one is more specific than the other.

I had a torts one a few min ago that talked about:

"A fed B some cake that he knew B was allergic to for B's birthday. B got sick from the cake and had to go to the hospital. On the way to the hospital, ambulance driver suffered a heart attack and crashed the ambulance causing B to break his leg. If B sues A for his leg injuries will B recover?"

A. Yes, because A knew the cake was harmful or offensive to B.
B. Yes, because the ambulance driver was negligent.
C. No, because A could not reasonably be expected to foresee the leg injury to B.
D. No, because the ambulance driver's heart attack was a superceeding cause of the broken leg.

I picked "D" which is clearly correct because superceeding causes stop liability for A. And the suit was for the broken leg, not for the battery from the allergic reaction. They tell me I am wrong and that the correct answer is "A", because answer "D" is inapplicable in regards to A's intentional tort (his battery)... The lawsuit was for the leg injury! Not for the battery!

The correct answer is A because negligent conduct by rescuers is foreseeable when you batter someone. You're on the hook for the ambulance driver as well as malpractice by doctors. A true superseding cause would be something unforeseeable, like the ambulance driver getting out a baseball bat and hitting your leg with it, causing a broken leg that way. I agree the reasoning for A is shitty though. The reason given doesn't talk about foreseeability at all.

You're right, thanks. Did some more research and only intentional torts (baseball bat like you mentioned) and acts of god are unforeseeable in regards to superceeding causes.

[071816]

Have people completely abandoned reading the long outlines? It seems like such a time sink and an amount of information I will definitely not be able to retain for the bar itself . . .

Yeah what is everyone's take on this? I'm not sure if I should continue reading them

& re: the question I pasted earlier - like I said, I understand that it's C because you back into it. Just because you can back into it because all the other answers are clearly wrong doesn't make it a good question.

I've completely abandoned the long outlines. Not even skimming them. I just briefly skim the summary outline and go straight to the lecture and handout. I think I'll just use the long outlines as references later on.

[kapital98]

Have people completely abandoned reading the long outlines? It seems like such a time sink and an amount of information I will definitely not be able to retain for the bar itself . . .

Yeah what is everyone's take on this? I'm not sure if I should continue reading them

I like the long outlines. I give them one read through before the lectures. I find this is especially helpful for MBE subjects because I already know most of the outline from 1L. For NY specific law (family law, Pro Responsibility) this method is less helpful.

I plan on using the summary outlines when it comes to memorization.

[Lasers]

i would like to punch whoever thought fill-in the blank handouts to be a good idea. how fucking ridiculous. just give me the fucking information. i don't have time for (your) games, themis. they probably saw barbri doing this garbage and decided to copy.

[swfangirl]

i would like to punch whoever thought fill-in the blank handouts to be a good idea. how fucking ridiculous. just give me the fucking information. i don't have time for (your) games, themis. they probably saw barbri doing this garbage and decided to copy.

I actually find it pretty helpful to fill out the hand-outs while listening on 2X speed.

[Xifeng]

i would like to punch whoever thought fill-in the blank handouts to be a good idea. how fucking ridiculous. just give me the fucking information. i don't have time for (your) games, themis. they probably saw barbri doing this garbage and decided to copy.

I actually find it pretty helpful to fill out the hand-outs while listening on 2X speed.

Same, otherwise I'd 100% zone out.

[lawyerwannabe]

i would like to punch whoever thought fill-in the blank handouts to be a good idea. how fucking ridiculous. just give me the fucking information. i don't have time for (your) games, themis. they probably saw barbri doing this garbage and decided to copy.

I actually find it pretty helpful to fill out the hand-outs while listening on 2X speed.

If you can follow along at 2x speed, then much respect to you. I can handle 1.5x, but 2x is a different story.

[puttycake]

If you can follow along at 2x speed, then much respect to you. I can handle 1.5x, but 2x is a different story.

That completely depends on the lecturer, for me. The MBE guy and Clark for torts and Jeffries for ConLaw can all be at 2x for me. Everyone else, no.

[jigglypuffdreams]

i would like to punch whoever thought fill-in the blank handouts to be a good idea. how fucking ridiculous. just give me the fucking information. i don't have time for (your) games, themis. they probably saw barbri doing this garbage and decided to copy.

Yeah, honestly it's half the reason I still read the outlines to study from. Yeah, they've got more information the lectures, but the formatting's prettier and they're better written and I don't have to play games with filling in the blanks. Would rather learn too much than play fill in the blank games.

[swfangirl]

If you can follow along at 2x speed, then much respect to you. I can handle 1.5x, but 2x is a different story.

That completely depends on the lecturer, for me. The MBE guy and Clark for torts and Jeffries for ConLaw can all be at 2x for me. Everyone else, no.

The NY Torts distinction guys talks way too fast on his own; had to do him at 1x-1.5x speed depending on the section. Conlaw, Property, Property Distinctions, Family Law, and Torts so far have all been good at 2x. I actually listen and understand better at 2x than 1x, not sure why.

[kapital98]

If you can follow along at 2x speed, then much respect to you. I can handle 1.5x, but 2x is a different story.

That completely depends on the lecturer, for me. The MBE guy and Clark for torts and Jeffries for ConLaw can all be at 2x for me. Everyone else, no.

I usually play the lectures at 1.5x. 1x is useful if I'm multi-tasking. 2x is only possible if I just drank a venti coffee and am in the zone!

[blue920]

Usually I do the lectures at 1.5x speed - for me, 1.5 makes them talk at a normal speed. Sometimes I just sit there and marvel that they're on quicker speed at all - it can be hard to tell.

Finished Saturday's tasks 30 minutes before midnight! I had a lot to do today, but I fully admit I was slacking this week so I was determined to get through everything. But this weekend's a bad weekend to have so much - lots of good sporting events to watch. Sorry, Themis, I'm going to have to abandon you tomorrow morning so I can watch Nadal's match. Should have done more during the week, but hindsight's 20/20.

Are people still using the handouts for practice essays? I had a NY Real Property Distinctions essay, and I hadn't had time (nor was it scheduled yet) to go over my handout for property, so I read the question and formulated responses, but had to go to the handout for the more specific language.

And I second (or third, fourth, whatever) the difficulty people are having with property. It was probably one of my worst subjects 1L year. But I did a lot of work in trusts and estates this year, and I'm finding that to be a big help - probably the only reason I was above 50% on the first problem set. Lots of review/learning to do there...

[Tanicius]

Substantive question for you guys. I keep getting hung up on this. It's about marketable title and other implied warranties for land sale contracts.

It says that marketable title is part of the land sale contract, not the deed, but that the marketable title does not actually have to be delivered until closing (when you give them the deed, right?)

What I don't understand is, if you can't sue someone for failure to deliver marketable title until you actually have the deed, doesn't the doctrine of merger preclude you from bringing any suit over the contract? How is it possible to sue someone for breach of marketable title if you can't sue them until closing, and if closing means the contract merges with the deed?

[Bigbub75]

Did anyone else get a call from their Themis rep? I got one the other day but I think it's because I am so behind (Only at about 17%). The fact that they were worried enough to call me and see how things are going has got me worried now!

[JJ556]

Did anyone else get a call from their Themis rep? I got one the other day but I think it's because I am so behind (Only at about 17%). The fact that they were worried enough to call me and see how things are going has got me worried now!

I got an e-mail from my state director stating that he would be giving everyone a call within the coming days, to just check-in and see how things are going. I actually think the personal phone calls are one of the marketing hallmarks (at least in PA/NJ) of Themis. So I don't think you have much to worry about. Just keep on chugging along.

[maximator]

Substantive question for you guys. I keep getting hung up on this. It's about marketable title and other implied warranties for land sale contracts.

It says that marketable title is part of the land sale contract, not the deed, but that the marketable title does not actually have to be delivered until closing (when you give them the deed, right?)

What I don't understand is, if you can't sue someone for failure to deliver marketable title until you actually have the deed, doesn't the doctrine of merger preclude you from bringing any suit over the contract? How is it possible to sue someone for breach of marketable title if you can't sue them until closing, and if closing means the contract merges with the deed?

I think this is just a contract law thing. Delivering marketable title is an implied condition in the contract. So just like any other contract, if one party doesn't fulfill its obligations, the other doesn't have to perform.

What would literally happen is that when the time for closing came, the buyer wouldn't accept the deed/pay, and merger wouldn't happen.

[j1987]

So I just got my graded essay back and it said my overall score was 1. However my grader put in the body of my essay his comments, and he broke each question down into point values and graded me that way giving me a 71/100 overall, but this was only in the body of the essay not at the very top where it says "overall score," did anyone else have this happen?