2015 February California Bar Exam Forum

[Evaly]

Literally know nothing about corporations/agency/partnership. Need advice on what people think are the most important areas so I can quickly study those the next few days. What do people think are the big "must knows" from these subjects? Thanks!

I am focusing on the following:

Corporation: 10b-5, 16(b), pierce corporate veil, duties of directors / officers
Agency: focus on express, implied and apparent authorities (shows up frequently in corp / partnership essays)
Partnership: formation, duties of partners, dissolution / winding up

[flpngino]

Literally know nothing about corporations/agency/partnership. Need advice on what people think are the most important areas so I can quickly study those the next few days. What do people think are the big "must knows" from these subjects? Thanks!

Agency:
Agent/Principal relationship
Authority (Apparent, Implied)
Duties owed to P, Duties owed to A
Liabilites for P, Liabilities to P

Partnership:
General Partnership
Limited Partnership
Limited Liability Partnership
Limited Liability Co
Liabilities/Rights, Formation, Duties for each

Corps:
Formation/Promoters
Piercing the Corp Veil
Stock types
Board of Director Action
Liabilities/Rights of Directors/Officers/Shareholders
Voting
Fundamental Corp Changes
10b5
16b

There were Corp/PR crossovers in Feb 07, 08, 10 and 11. Those tested de jure/de facto corporations and liabilities of those corporations; ultra vires actions; requirements for limited liability partnerships; and shareholder agreements/proxies. FYI.

[mhub172]

Thanks all for the corp/agency/p-ship replies! That will help me focus more for this subject. Getting somewhat nervous with how little time is left!

Good luck studying with the remaining days everyone!!

[a male human]

Getting flashbacks to when I took it a year ago. It feels like a long time ago, but I distinctly remember posting on TLS from the toilet after the first day was over—a physical manifestation of what I had done earlier. And Courtney was eating and posting in her car during lunch I think.

[Furball]

"Getting flashbacks to when I took it a year ago. It feels like a long time ago, but I distinctly remember posting on TLS from the toilet after the first day was over—a physical manifestation of what I had done earlier."

LOL good one. So f'en true.

[bb8900]

Wills and Trusts Question:

An omitted child is one who is born after the execution of the will and is left out. They can still get their cut, barring exceptions for (1) intentional omission of child, (2) $$ left with another parent, or (3) provided for outside of the will.

Is there such a thing as a pretermitted child? I swear I read that somewhere, but cannot find it now! It is basically a child who is born before the will was made, but still not in it (for whatever reason). However, the presumption is that you would want your child to get some of your stuff, so they are entitled to their intestate share, barring the same three exceptions above.

Can anyone conform or deny this? Thanks!

I asked this question earlier in the thread because the baressays.com model answers have different rules for pretermitted/omitted but there wasn't much response. I think most people use the term omitted for both, as my kaplan materials and the leansheets do. I tried to find the word pretermitted in the CA probate code but I didn't see it there. If it comes up I'm probably just going to make my heading pretermitted/omitted.

Both pretermitted and omitted are entitled to the intestate share barring the same three exceptions. The only difference I have in the two rules is that the omitted child only gets the intestate share if the testator was unaware of the omitted child's existence or believed the child was dead.

I couldn't find anything in my notes or the outlines about, so it must have been in one of the baressays.com. I think that the two are the same thing. Basically, there is no such thing as a pretermitted child. I think that answer just made it up/got it wrong.

[CourtneyElizabeth]

Getting flashbacks to when I took it a year ago. It feels like a long time ago, but I distinctly remember posting on TLS from the toilet after the first day was over—a physical manifestation of what I had done earlier. And Courtney was eating and posting in her car during lunch I think.

Yeeeep. We were all in it together! Then i didn't pass again wanted to kill everyone.

[flpngino]

Wills and Trusts Question:

An omitted child is one who is born after the execution of the will and is left out. They can still get their cut, barring exceptions for (1) intentional omission of child, (2) $$ left with another parent, or (3) provided for outside of the will.

Is there such a thing as a pretermitted child? I swear I read that somewhere, but cannot find it now! It is basically a child who is born before the will was made, but still not in it (for whatever reason). However, the presumption is that you would want your child to get some of your stuff, so they are entitled to their intestate share, barring the same three exceptions above.

Can anyone conform or deny this? Thanks!

I asked this question earlier in the thread because the baressays.com model answers have different rules for pretermitted/omitted but there wasn't much response. I think most people use the term omitted for both, as my kaplan materials and the leansheets do. I tried to find the word pretermitted in the CA probate code but I didn't see it there. If it comes up I'm probably just going to make my heading pretermitted/omitted.

Both pretermitted and omitted are entitled to the intestate share barring the same three exceptions. The only difference I have in the two rules is that the omitted child only gets the intestate share if the testator was unaware of the omitted child's existence or believed the child was dead.

I couldn't find anything in my notes or the outlines about, so it must have been in one of the baressays.com. I think that the two are the same thing. Basically, there is no such thing as a pretermitted child. I think that answer just made it up/got it wrong.

In the CA probate code they only refer to "omitted child", but if you read the definition, it is basically a pretermitted child, or a child that was born after the creation of the will. I would avoid any confusion and avoid referring to pretermitted child because if you state the rule, it's pretty clear what you mean.

[morescotchplease]

Yeeeep. We were all in it together! Then i didn't pass again wanted to kill everyone.

which crime, if at all, could Courtney be convicted of?

a) Murder
b) Voluntary Manslaughter
c) Battery
d) No crime, because she had a justifiable excuse.

[CourtneyElizabeth]

d.

[morescotchplease]

d.

Correct

[dueprocess14]

Alright, I've decided I am condensing every essay subject into one page of notes/outline. If I can't fit it onto one page, I won't remember it anyway, right?

I really really really wish they gave us choices on the essays. How great would that be?

[bb8900]

Civ Pro Questions:

1. I am still struggling with aggregation of claims and parties. Basically, when can two plaintiffs aggregate against one defendant? Ex: P1 and P2 have a pole fall on their cars. P1 has damages of $75,000. P2 has damages of $15,000. D is resident of forum state. P1 & P2 are both residents of a different state. P1 & P2 want to sue D jointly. May they?

2. What if P1 had claims over $75,000? Then could P2 have "piggybacked" and aggregated?


3. What about if one P wants to aggregate multiple claims against one D. Can P aggregate random claims to get over the 75K requirement? Ex: P wants to sue D in diversity. P has one claim for $40,000 under a K claim, and another claim for $36K under a tort claim. May P aggregate these claims against D?

4. Same question as #3, but this time both claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.

Thanks!

[aretoodeetoo]

i think i know but i'm not confident enough to answer. this is a problem. lol. and my GUESS without looking cause i'm studying freaking prof resp... is yes yes no yes, actually i have no idea

[Furball]

Civ Pro Questions:

1. I am still struggling with aggregation of claims and parties. Basically, when can two plaintiffs aggregate against one defendant? Ex: P1 and P2 have a pole fall on their cars. P1 has damages of $75,000. P2 has damages of $15,000. D is resident of forum state. P1 & P2 are both residents of a different state. P1 & P2 want to sue D jointly. May they?

2. What if P1 had claims over $75,000? Then could P2 have "piggybacked" and aggregated?


3. What about if one P wants to aggregate multiple claims against one D. Can P aggregate random claims to get over the 75K requirement? Ex: P wants to sue D in diversity. P has one claim for $40,000 under a K claim, and another claim for $36K under a tort claim. May P aggregate these claims against D?

4. Same question as #3, but this time both claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.

Thanks!

My memory is a bit hazy because it's been a few months where I had to study Civ Pro for bar exam purposes. But I'll try my best.

1) 2 P's can aggregate their claims against 1 D if their cases arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact (oh hey, did I just remember this crap?!). Essentially, if the 2 P's cases arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original case, then yes, they can be aggregated.

2) Yes, as long as their cases arise out of a common nucleus of operative fact, P2 can have his case aggregated with P1 since P1's $75,000 satisfies the jurisdictional amount.

3) Yes 1 P can aggregate his multiple claims against 1 D, even if the cases are unrelated, because aggregation is allowed for 1 P v. 1 D. From what I recall, this is to serve judicial efficiency.

4) Yes

Hope that helps. Others can chime in and correct me because again, it's been a few months since I've had to look at my Civ Pro outlines so I may be wrong.

[underthirty]

.

[aretoodeetoo]

Civ Pro Questions:

1. I am still struggling with aggregation of claims and parties. Basically, when can two plaintiffs aggregate against one defendant? Ex: P1 and P2 have a pole fall on their cars. P1 has damages of $75,000. P2 has damages of $15,000. D is resident of forum state. P1 & P2 are both residents of a different state. P1 & P2 want to sue D jointly. May they?

2. What if P1 had claims over $75,000? Then could P2 have "piggybacked" and aggregated?

3. What about if one P wants to aggregate multiple claims against one D. Can P aggregate random claims to get over the 75K requirement? Ex: P wants to sue D in diversity. P has one claim for $40,000 under a K claim, and another claim for $36K under a tort claim. May P aggregate these claims against D?

4. Same question as #3, but this time both claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.

Thanks!

1. No. The amount in controversy for any one plaintiff must be more than $75,000 (unless it is a class action).

2. No. See #1.

3. Yes. A single plaintiff may combine multiple claims against a single defendant in order to meet the amount in controversy requirement.

4. Yes. See #3.

lol forget this

[bb8900]

Civ Pro Questions:

1. I am still struggling with aggregation of claims and parties. Basically, when can two plaintiffs aggregate against one defendant? Ex: P1 and P2 have a pole fall on their cars. P1 has damages of $75,000. P2 has damages of $15,000. D is resident of forum state. P1 & P2 are both residents of a different state. P1 & P2 want to sue D jointly. May they?

2. What if P1 had claims over $75,000? Then could P2 have "piggybacked" and aggregated?

3. What about if one P wants to aggregate multiple claims against one D. Can P aggregate random claims to get over the 75K requirement? Ex: P wants to sue D in diversity. P has one claim for $40,000 under a K claim, and another claim for $36K under a tort claim. May P aggregate these claims against D?

4. Same question as #3, but this time both claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.

Thanks!

1. No. The amount in controversy for each plaintiff must be more than $75,000 (unless it is a class action).

2. No. See #1.

3. Yes. A single plaintiff may combine multiple claims against a single defendant in order to meet the amount in controversy requirement.

4. Yes. See #3.

1. I believe it is no, b/c neither have over 75K.

2. I believe it is yes, b/c if at least one had over 75K, then the court could use supplemental jx to get the other one in.

3. I believe it is yes, b/c P can aggregate any claims, as long as it is against one D.

4. I believe yes.

[underthirty]

.

[BobbyBooBoo]

Anyone here good with remedies?

I have some issue with constructive trusts. I feel like constructive trusts should be imposed in every circumstance where someone has acquired title to something that you should get.

As far as I understand it, constructive trusts require the Defendant to have title to the property, and to have committed a wrongful act, which resulted in unjust enrichment.

I seem to think everything should be under a constructive trust when it's a remedies question.

Also anyone else using baressays.com? I find no pattern between the grading. I thought some 50s were written as well as 75s. It's confusing as hell.

[redblueyellow]

Anyone here good with remedies?

I have some issue with constructive trusts. I feel like constructive trusts should be imposed in every circumstance where someone has acquired title to something that you should get.

As far as I understand it, constructive trusts require the Defendant to have title to the property, and to have committed a wrongful act, which resulted in unjust enrichment.

I seem to think everything should be under a constructive trust when it's a remedies question.

Also anyone else using baressays.com? I find no pattern between the grading. I thought some 50s were written as well as 75s. It's confusing as hell.

Constructive trusts are the preferred remedy when the value of the property has gone up.

Equitable liens are the preferred remedy when the value of the property has gone down (so that a deficiency judgment/lien is placed for the remaining balance against the tortfeasor).

Constructive trusts also do not apply where the D has improved the property (e.g. built a house on improperly acquired property) so that takes out the option for the trust completely. Not sure how liberal courts are in what constitutes an "improvement," though.

I use baressays and I tend to only look at the highest graded essays and the lowest. They're sufficiently far apart to tell the difference. Using the middle ranked essays is confusing because at times you'll wonder why that one was graded too low (or too high) and then that just creates way too much doubt. If I'm feeling lazy, I will only pick out rule statements from the calbar essays, though (but even that's rare since there are errors in those essays as well).

[Pickledbeets92]

Just want to chime in and remind folks that you can completely blank on one or two (In my case, two and a half) essays and still pass the exam. Your essays don't need to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I blew both professional responsibility questions last year and missed an issue of moderate significance on the criminal law essay and I still passed. You'll inevitably run across a question, possibly even an entire essay, which in retrospect you may as well have left blank. If you did what you need to do on the other sections, you'll be fine.

[redblueyellow]

Just want to chime in and remind folks that you can completely blank on one or two (In my case, two and a half) essays and still pass the exam. Your essays don't need to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I blew both professional responsibility questions last year and missed an issue of moderate significance on the criminal law essay and I still passed. You'll inevitably run across a question, possibly even an entire essay, which in retrospect you may as well have left blank. If you did what you need to do on the other sections, you'll be fine.

OK, I'm going to object here as to not give people like myself false hope. If you blew multiple essays (2.5 as you claimed) that means you did EXTREMELY well on the MBE and probably REALLY good on the PTs.

I think most people are just looking for competency in all the sections, which makes more sense than completely acing a particular portion.

Still, you must've knocked it out of the park in the other remaining essays/PTs and/or the MBEs.

I'm just hoping for that D+ average in everything I do! Only need a D to pass, right?!

[Pickledbeets92]

Just want to chime in and remind folks that you can completely blank on one or two (In my case, two and a half) essays and still pass the exam. Your essays don't need to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I blew both professional responsibility questions last year and missed an issue of moderate significance on the criminal law essay and I still passed. You'll inevitably run across a question, possibly even an entire essay, which in retrospect you may as well have left blank. If you did what you need to do on the other sections, you'll be fine.

OK, I'm going to object here as to not give people like myself false hope. If you blew multiple essays (2.5 as you claimed) that means you did EXTREMELY well on the MBE and probably REALLY good on the PTs.

I think most people are just looking for competency in all the sections, which makes more sense than completely acing a particular portion.

Still, you must've knocked it out of the park in the other remaining essays/PTs and/or the MBEs.

I'm just hoping for that D+ average in everything I do! Only need a D to pass, right?!

Don't get me wrong, I felt very confident on the PTs and was scoring ~80% on my multiple choice practice tests, but it seemed like 90% of the people I heard from in the days immediately preceding the bar exam were like "What? You confused marital privilege with spousal privilege? Have fun taking the exam again, you blockhead." That's simply not the case. Missing one or, in my case, issues will not cause you to fail the exam unless the rest of your exam was substandard. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I'm living proof.

[Evaly]

Just want to chime in and remind folks that you can completely blank on one or two (In my case, two and a half) essays and still pass the exam. Your essays don't need to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination. I blew both professional responsibility questions last year and missed an issue of moderate significance on the criminal law essay and I still passed. You'll inevitably run across a question, possibly even an entire essay, which in retrospect you may as well have left blank. If you did what you need to do on the other sections, you'll be fine.

OK, I'm going to object here as to not give people like myself false hope. If you blew multiple essays (2.5 as you claimed) that means you did EXTREMELY well on the MBE and probably REALLY good on the PTs.

I think most people are just looking for competency in all the sections, which makes more sense than completely acing a particular portion.

Still, you must've knocked it out of the park in the other remaining essays/PTs and/or the MBEs.

I'm just hoping for that D+ average in everything I do! Only need a D to pass, right?!

Don't get me wrong, I felt very confident on the PTs and was scoring ~80% on my multiple choice practice tests, but it seemed like 90% of the people I heard from in the days immediately preceding the bar exam were like "What? You confused marital privilege with spousal privilege? Have fun taking the exam again, you blockhead." That's simply not the case. Missing one or, in my case, issues will not cause you to fail the exam unless the rest of your exam was substandard. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I'm living proof.

Doh, this is not making me calm...80% is really high. I am just going to go panic now