Texas Bar Exam July 2014 Forum

[OklahomasOK]

For the Barbri takers, on Texas Wills & Estates #31, we're to assume that Jeff's will is talking about his separate property estate, right? The example we were given dealt with CP being addressed in a will with a pretermitted child (lecture handout, Wills I, p. 20, top of the page).

I am fuzzy here so let me understand this correctly. If the estate at issue is CP, we divide it in 1/2 (take $1,000,000 as an example), leave the $500,000 attributable to the surviving spouse along, the dispose of the estate (the remaining 1/2) according to the will & pretermitted child rules. If the question is silent (as #31 is) on what type of property we're dealing with, we should assume SP?

I hate making the assumption one way or another because we all know what assuming does...

I think we should assume that it's talking about both SP and CP. The will devises "all of my property". By its terms that's everything Jeff owns. SP and CP are both property that Jeff owns, so by the terms of the will they're both included. SP and CP have different rules for intestate succession, but I think that a valid will can trump the intestate rules in both cases.

I thought so too, but the Barbri model answers just divides everything up as SP. Thus, my answer looked like a cluster.

Edit: I thought it was relevant, in part, because the Family Law essay told me to go to #31 for a CP essay. Oh well. Hope we don't get it on the bar. If we do, guess I'll point it out.

[TX129392]

For the Barbri takers, on Texas Wills & Estates #31, we're to assume that Jeff's will is talking about his separate property estate, right? The example we were given dealt with CP being addressed in a will with a pretermitted child (lecture handout, Wills I, p. 20, top of the page).

I am fuzzy here so let me understand this correctly. If the estate at issue is CP, we divide it in 1/2 (take $1,000,000 as an example), leave the $500,000 attributable to the surviving spouse along, the dispose of the estate (the remaining 1/2) according to the will & pretermitted child rules. If the question is silent (as #31 is) on what type of property we're dealing with, we should assume SP?

I hate making the assumption one way or another because we all know what assuming does...

I think we should assume that it's talking about both SP and CP. The will devises "all of my property". By its terms that's everything Jeff owns. SP and CP are both property that Jeff owns, so by the terms of the will they're both included. SP and CP have different rules for intestate succession, but I think that a valid will can trump the intestate rules in both cases.

I thought so too, but the Barbri model answers just divides everything up as SP. Thus, my answer looked like a cluster.

Edit: I thought it was relevant, in part, because the Family Law essay told me to go to #31 for a CP essay. Oh well. Hope we don't get it on the bar. If we do, guess I'll point it out.

I don't think that's what it's doing, though. If the other children are provided for, the pretermitted child takes the same proportion as that provided under the will. So it doesn't matter whether it's CP or SP in this case.

[aquasalad]

Wills 31 is interesting because it seems that the will explicitly excludes adopted children... glad y'all brought that up I wouldn't have given William anything. The purpose of the statute is to protect against accidental omissions (pg. 21 of the lecture handout), this doesn't seem accidental it seems deliberate.

For me, the tricky pretermitted child scenario is when T had no other children at time of will.

[TX129392]

For me, the tricky pretermitted child scenario is when T had no other children at time of will.

That one's so annoying. There are way too many steps to figure out what the kid gets. It's so easy to make a mistake somewhere in there.

[OklahomasOK]

For the Barbri takers, on Texas Wills & Estates #31, we're to assume that Jeff's will is talking about his separate property estate, right? The example we were given dealt with CP being addressed in a will with a pretermitted child (lecture handout, Wills I, p. 20, top of the page).

I am fuzzy here so let me understand this correctly. If the estate at issue is CP, we divide it in 1/2 (take $1,000,000 as an example), leave the $500,000 attributable to the surviving spouse along, the dispose of the estate (the remaining 1/2) according to the will & pretermitted child rules. If the question is silent (as #31 is) on what type of property we're dealing with, we should assume SP?

I hate making the assumption one way or another because we all know what assuming does...

I think we should assume that it's talking about both SP and CP. The will devises "all of my property". By its terms that's everything Jeff owns. SP and CP are both property that Jeff owns, so by the terms of the will they're both included. SP and CP have different rules for intestate succession, but I think that a valid will can trump the intestate rules in both cases.

I thought so too, but the Barbri model answers just divides everything up as SP. Thus, my answer looked like a cluster.

Edit: I thought it was relevant, in part, because the Family Law essay told me to go to #31 for a CP essay. Oh well. Hope we don't get it on the bar. If we do, guess I'll point it out.

I don't think that's what it's doing, though. If the other children are provided for, the pretermitted child takes the same proportion as that provided under the will. So it doesn't matter whether it's CP or SP in this case.

Yes, you're right. My mistake was taking 1/2 CP off the top (assuming the question was talking about CP). So I was giving the Wife her 1/2 CP share, then 1/2 of the H's CP estate, and then the pretermitted child and 3 natural born children take equal shares of the remaining.

Wills 31 is interesting because it seems that the will explicitly excludes adopted children... glad y'all brought that up I wouldn't have given William anything. The purpose of the statute is to protect against accidental omissions (pg. 21 of the lecture handout), this doesn't seem accidental it seems deliberate.

For me, the tricky pretermitted child scenario is when T had no other children at time of will.

Yes! Remember, no matter if the "born of my body" phrase is in the will, if the child comes after the will, they are pretermitted. ALSO, look out for holographic codicils that will keep the "pretermitted" child from taking because they were contemplated (or assumed to have been contemplated) when the codicil was made. I never took Wills in law school but I really "like" the way a Wills & Estate problem flows, pretty logical.

[TX129392]

I never took Wills in law school but I really "like" the way a Wills & Estate problem flows

You're one sick mother fucker.

[OklahomasOK]

I never took Wills in law school but I really "like" the way a Wills & Estate problem flows

You're one sick mother fucker.

At least I didn't say Real Property.

[Raven1228]

Quick question under Corporations: Piercing the Corporate Veil works on shareholders of all corporations, right?

I made a note somewhere that it's only available against shareholders of Close Corporations but I think that's wrong.

[YYZ]

Quick question under Corporations: Piercing the Corporate Veil works on shareholders of all corporations, right?

I made a note somewhere that it's only available against shareholders of Close Corporations but I think that's wrong.

I think it's generally only for close corporations but there's no requirement that it be a close corporation. As you probably know, the idea is that 1-3 people can't form a corporation expecting to be shielded from personal liability for their wrongdoings. These people are really acting for themselves and not for the benefit of a larger corporation.

[Grapes]

Quick question under Corporations: Piercing the Corporate Veil works on shareholders of all corporations, right?

I made a note somewhere that it's only available against shareholders of Close Corporations but I think that's wrong.

You're note is actually right. I'll just paste my outline I made when i took the UBE in feb (and passed). fyi these notes mainly came from Rich Freer's corporations lecture

c. SHAREHOLDER LIABILITY
i. GENERAL RULE: Shareholders not liable for the acts or debts of the corporation. Corporation is liable for what it does.
ii. EXCEPTION - PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL
1. Only in close corporations
2. STANDARD: To pierce the corporate and hold shareholders personally liable, (1) they must have abused the privilege of incorporating AND (2) fairness must require holding them liable
3. RATIONALE: Courts may PCV to avoid fraud or unfairness by shareholder in a close corporation. Sloppy administration not enough to PCV
4. NOTE: Shareholder might be a corporation [pierce subsidiary to get thru to parent company]
iii. FACT PATTERNS
1. Alter ego – commingling of interests [SH treating assets of own]
2. Undercapitalization – corporation failed to invest enough to cover corporate responsibilities
iv. Say this – courts may be more willing to PCV for a tort victim than for a contract

[txadv11]

Good luck. I'll be that guy in Arlington that has the look of impending doom on his face

[OklahomasOK]

Good luck. I'll be that guy in Arlington that has the look of impending doom on his face

Me too. Getting very nervous.

[Raven1228]

I am freaking out over commercial paper. This stuff is a nightmare. Can't memorize everything.

[jr8966]

Diagram the crap out of commercial paper. That helped me figure out the players, arguments, and remedies. What really makes commercial paper tricky is the constant change in instrument, people acquiring the instrument, and the warranties that accompany the instrument. Just map it out.

[arkhamhorror]

Honestly, it's one essay out of 12. I'm resigned to not wasting any time on it and studying areas where I can pick up points. I can likely bullshit my way to a 12/25 on commercial paper, which is enough.

[OklahomasOK]

I am freaking out over commercial paper. This stuff is a nightmare. Can't memorize everything.

Mnemonics my friend.

Elements of negotiability: FUN PUS WM

HDC: NiW PHAG

Real Defenses: I FLIP DICS

Know COA for each possible place of forgeries/ alteration (Kx, Transfer, Presentment) and know shelter rule. Crush it.

[TX129392]

Know COA for each possible place of forgeries/ alteration (Kx, Transfer, Presentment) and know shelter rule. Crush it.

COA?

[OklahomasOK]

Know COA for each possible place of forgeries/ alteration (Kx, Transfer, Presentment) and know shelter rule. Crush it.

COA?

Cause of action.

[aquasalad]

Holder: "HAVING"
-holder: properly negotiated
-authenticity not in question
-value given
-negotiable instrument
-no notice of problems with instrument
-good faith: observance of commercial dealign

That, along with the elements of negotiability, the bank statement rule, and conversion liability, is the extent of my commercial paper knowledge.

Hopefully that will get me through..

Last minute learning Texas Real Property- mechanics liens and homestead right now...

[nonprofit-prophet]

If a thief steals a pre-indorsed check (bearer paper), is he a holder? I know forging a payee signature breaks chain of title and ensures the thief isnt a holder. But anyone with possession of bearer paper is entitled to enforce, so is the thief a holder?

[TX129392]

If a thief steals a pre-indorsed check (bearer paper), is he a holder? I know forging a payee signature breaks chain of title and ensures the thief isnt a holder. But anyone with possession of bearer paper is entitled to enforce, so is the thief a holder?

Yup. Your logic is correct. To be a holder of bearer paper, you only have to have possession.

[TX129392]

Anyone else feeling screwed for the P&E portion? I know it's only a small part of our score, but I've just been going over some prior tests and am having a lot of trouble remembering things (esp. crim pro).

[jr8966]

I was a little stressed about the PE but just do some exams today and you'll pick up the repetitive questions/topics. Its nice to get the PE points but its not exactly a great return of time invested to understand all the minor deadlines and exceptions. Just know the logical flow of a case.

[txadv11]

looking @ past P&E

"what is the time period in which a defense atty must contact the defendant?"

follow up "what are the remedies for failing to do so" (paraphrasing)

anyone know?

B/c right now I'd put "reasonably promptly" and "judge can withdraw attys representation"

[TX129392]

looking @ past P&E

"what is the time period in which a defense atty must contact the defendant?"

follow up "what are the remedies for failing to do so" (paraphrasing)

anyone know?

B/c right now I'd put "reasonably promptly" and "judge can withdraw attys representation"

Just did this one -- it's by the end of the next business day after being appointed, and judge can replace the atty.