Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[Genuine4ps]

I apologize if this has been asked already, but has anyone figured out for certain if Themis uses actually MBE questions? The reason I ask is that I'm seeing a couple patters of right and wrong answers, and I'm answering questions based on those patterns. If they aren't real questions, I want to make sure I don't use these patterns on the real thing.

I'm answering many of my questions based on the same pattern. I've answered 51 questions so far for both Con Law and Torts and the patterns are there. Annoyingly, I've even been asked some of the exact same questions twice.

I think the prior MBE questions are marked in the answer explanations. I've seen a couple that say "this NCBE question has been modified to reflect current stylistic trends" or something to that effect. So they ARE past questions but they aren't at the same time. I was also asked two different questions twice in one 34 question set.

Ok, so if it says the bolded then it is an actual MBE question (modified to a certain extent), and if it DOESN'T say the bolded, then it's a question Themis made up?

[SisyphusHappy]

I'm having problems with a Property issue still, if someone could help me out.

A conveys to B who doesn't record.
A conveys to C who records without notice.
In a notice jurisdiction, C has title, right?

But:
B takes A's land by adverse possession.
A conveys to C who records.
B has title, right? Because A has no title to convey? But, didn't A also not have a title to convey in the first example when he conveyed to C (since he had already conveyed it)?

[Tanicius]

I'm having problems with a Property issue still, if someone could help me out.

A conveys to B who doesn't record.
A conveys to C who records without notice.
In a notice jurisdiction, C has title, right?

But:
B takes A's land by adverse possession.
A conveys to C who records.
B has title, right? Because A has no title to convey? But, didn't A also not have a title to convey in the first example when he conveyed to C (since he had already conveyed it)?

Focus on what a notice recording statute does. It protects future buyers who buy in good faith. Normally, that would mean that adverse possessers are out of luck, wouldn't it? They didn't provide a means to the buyer to know that they were making an invalid purchase. However, there is a majority rule exception for adverse possession. Since they never receive a formal deed instrument with which they can record their possession, the courts do not require them to record, even in notice recording jurisdictions. The adverse possessor thus wins even though C had no notice.

[SisyphusHappy]

I'm having problems with a Property issue still, if someone could help me out.

A conveys to B who doesn't record.
A conveys to C who records without notice.
In a notice jurisdiction, C has title, right?

But:
B takes A's land by adverse possession.
A conveys to C who records.
B has title, right? Because A has no title to convey? But, didn't A also not have a title to convey in the first example when he conveyed to C (since he had already conveyed it)?

Focus on what a notice recording statute does. It protects future buyers who buy in good faith. Normally, that would mean that adverse possessers are out of luck, wouldn't it? They didn't provide a means to the buyer to know that they were making an invalid purchase. However, there is a majority rule exception for adverse possession. Since they never receive a formal deed instrument with which they can record their possession, the courts do not require them to record, even in notice recording jurisdictions. The adverse possessor thus wins even though C had no notice.

But what about another example:
A conveys to B, who doesn't record.
D (who is some random con artist) conveys that same property to C, who records.
B still has title, right? Because D had no title to convey? I don't understand how that's different form the original example where A, who tried to convey a second time, also no longer had a title to convey.

[Tanicius]

But what about another example:
A conveys to B, who doesn't record.
D (who is some random con artist) conveys that same property to C, who records.
B still has title, right? Because D had no title to convey? I don't understand how that's different form the original example where A, who tried to convey a second time, also no longer had a title to convey.

Almost every single Property problem with disputed ownership involves an invalid sale. Just because the sale is invalid doesn't mean the buyer gets hung out to dry. Think of this problem hypothetical, which almost all the questions use in some variant form:

A donates a property to his nephew.
10 years later, A decides "Fuck it, I'll make some money off this land and sell it even though it's not mine," and sells to B and then skips town for Venezuela on a one-way flight with the proceeds.
His poor little nephew never recorded.

That kind of scenario happens all the time on Notice questions. Most commonly, the seller doesn't presently have title, but at one point in time did have title. The poor little nephew will only be protected if he recorded or there is some other form of notice available to the later buyer. If the little nephew never recorded, then as far as a buyer would be concerned, when they look up the recorded titles at the government office, they see that A still owns the property! How would that be fair to the buyer if they exhaust every avenue reasonably expected of them to find out who owns the property? They held up their end of the bargain, whereas the stupid little nephew just had to record his deed at the office and yet he never did. That's his own damn fault, as far as the policy argument for a Notice statute goes.

Let me explain why the scam artist situation is a lot less likely now. D, the scam artist, has no recorded interest in the property -- past, present, or future. When you look up D's name, you find zero connection to the property. It would be very difficult for Buyer to look up the recorded titles and somehow think that D actually owns the property. He would look up the recorded titles and find out that A actually has the property on the books. If A recorded and a scam artist pretends to be A, then A is probably protected; I'm sure the courts would say that C is on the hook because C is the one who got duped, not A. C's only recourse would be to try to recover from the scam artist, and if he can't find the scam artist then he's out of luck. Importantly, however, none of our materials really covered this, so I wouldn't worry either way. Identity fraud isn't anything we learn about.

[SisyphusHappy]

Lots of text showing Tanicius understands Property better than I.

Awesome. Thanks so much for the explanation.

[Genuine4ps]

Hey Bronx, since you're the only person in this thread (that I know of) who has passed the bar with Themis, what do you think about the long outlines?

[Bronx Bum]

Hey Bronx, since you're the only person in this thread (that I know of) who has passed the bar with Themis, what do you think about the long outlines?

I literally never touched them. I looked at the civil procedure one, literally spit my coffee all over the screen and laughed. They're a waste of time. You'll realize as you get later into your studying that there's just too much material. Not sure if themis sent you those condensed outlines yet but the perfect amount to have memorized COLD is somewhere between the condensed outline (which is kind of lean) and the handouts (which is too much in my opinion). There's absolutely NO way that you can memorize those big outlines. If you want to use them as a reference when you really don't get it? Then go for it. But I would ditch reading them.

As far as the state subjects (for NY specifically) there's only a certain amount of topics that have been tested. Some crazy statistic like 90%+ of the topics on any given exam were previously tested for NY. So what I did was I took every subtopic that has ever been tested in NY (since like 1995) and listed the elements on a sheet. For example, I'd have a page for Corporations and I would say "To remove a director you need X, Y and Z." Very simply. I took two full days to do that for every subject and I read through it 5 times before bed every night. No matter how small I had to write, I promised myself I wouldn't go over one page, front and back for each subject. I didn't. By doing that you had EVERYTHING you needed to pass the bar on like 20 sheets of paper. It helped mentally.

Then I just did every MBE question I could get my hands on. I used themis for their great question bank and great essay bank. I did the flex study. I know I absolutely crushed the essays and copped DAT 161 MBE, so it worked.

[Stringer6]

Hey Bronx, since you're the only person in this thread (that I know of) who has passed the bar with Themis, what do you think about the long outlines?

I literally never touched them. I looked at the civil procedure one, literally spit my coffee all over the screen and laughed. They're a waste of time. You'll realize as you get later into your studying that there's just too much material. Not sure if themis sent you those condensed outlines yet but the perfect amount to have memorized COLD is somewhere between the condensed outline (which is kind of lean) and the handouts (which is too much in my opinion). There's absolutely NO way that you can memorize those big outlines. If you want to use them as a reference when you really don't get it? Then go for it. But I would ditch reading them.

As far as the state subjects (for NY specifically) there's only a certain amount of topics that have been tested. Some crazy statistic like 90%+ of the topics on any given exam were previously tested for NY. So what I did was I took every subtopic that has ever been tested in NY (since like 1995) and listed the elements on a sheet. For example, I'd have a page for Corporations and I would say "To remove a director you need X, Y and Z." Very simply. I took two full days to do that for every subject and I read through it 5 times before bed every night. No matter how small I had to write, I promised myself I wouldn't go over one page, front and back for each subject. I didn't. By doing that you had EVERYTHING you needed to pass the bar on like 20 sheets of paper. It helped mentally.

Then I just did every MBE question I could get my hands on. I used themis for their great question bank and great essay bank. I did the flex study. I know I absolutely crushed the essays and copped DAT 161 MBE, so it worked.

If you got 161 on the MBE and crushed the essays, how did you almost fail? I recall yOu saying that before.

[Gotti]

Bronx Bum - idk if you've mentioned this before, but did you make flashcards at all?

[Bronx Bum]

Bronx Bum - idk if you've mentioned this before, but did you make flashcards at all?

Not a flashcard guy. I really can't imagine havin 1500 flashcards but whatever works.

[Gotti]

Bronx Bum - idk if you've mentioned this before, but did you make flashcards at all?

Not a flashcard guy. I really can't imagine havin 1500 flashcards but whatever works.

I've never been one before but writing shit down is helping me memorize. I guess. dunno how else to do it.

[Bronx Bum]

Bronx Bum - idk if you've mentioned this before, but did you make flashcards at all?

Not a flashcard guy. I really can't imagine havin 1500 flashcards but whatever works.

I've never been one before but writing shit down is helping me memorize. I guess. dunno how else to do it.

If you have $30 laying around, you should look at lean sheets. Great for the MBE.

[Genuine4ps]

Bronx Bum - idk if you've mentioned this before, but did you make flashcards at all?

Not a flashcard guy. I really can't imagine havin 1500 flashcards but whatever works.

I've never been one before but writing shit down is helping me memorize. I guess. dunno how else to do it.

If you have $30 laying around, you should look at lean sheets. Great for the MBE.

Interesting. I just did some quick research, and they seem to have pretty positive reviews. How did you study with them?

[Stringer6]

Bronx Bum -- you see my previous question? Just curious. It's fine if you don't want to answer, obviously.

[Bronx Bum]

Almost wrt running out of study time bc I waited last minute, not based on score. Just tryin to help some ppl bro.

[Rabsims]

Then I just did every MBE question I could get my hands on. I used themis for their great question bank and great essay bank. I did the flex study. I know I absolutely crushed the essays and copped DAT 161 MBE, so it worked.

How were you scoring on the MBEs during prep? I get discouraged that I can't crack 60-65% on most subjects. I know it is still early, but I just don't have any point of reference right now to know what is good.

[Tanicius]

Then I just did every MBE question I could get my hands on. I used themis for their great question bank and great essay bank. I did the flex study. I know I absolutely crushed the essays and copped DAT 161 MBE, so it worked.

How were you scoring on the MBEs during prep? I get discouraged that I can't crack 60-65% on most subjects. I know it is still early, but I just don't have any point of reference right now to know what is good.

If you're in the average, you're fine. Remember, the average is passing.

[lawyerwannabe]

Hey Bronx, since you're the only person in this thread (that I know of) who has passed the bar with Themis, what do you think about the long outlines?

I literally never touched them. I looked at the civil procedure one, literally spit my coffee all over the screen and laughed. They're a waste of time. You'll realize as you get later into your studying that there's just too much material. Not sure if themis sent you those condensed outlines yet but the perfect amount to have memorized COLD is somewhere between the condensed outline (which is kind of lean) and the handouts (which is too much in my opinion). There's absolutely NO way that you can memorize those big outlines. If you want to use them as a reference when you really don't get it? Then go for it. But I would ditch reading them.

As far as the state subjects (for NY specifically) there's only a certain amount of topics that have been tested. Some crazy statistic like 90%+ of the topics on any given exam were previously tested for NY. So what I did was I took every subtopic that has ever been tested in NY (since like 1995) and listed the elements on a sheet. For example, I'd have a page for Corporations and I would say "To remove a director you need X, Y and Z." Very simply. I took two full days to do that for every subject and I read through it 5 times before bed every night. No matter how small I had to write, I promised myself I wouldn't go over one page, front and back for each subject. I didn't. By doing that you had EVERYTHING you needed to pass the bar on like 20 sheets of paper. It helped mentally.

Then I just did every MBE question I could get my hands on. I used themis for their great question bank and great essay bank. I did the flex study. I know I absolutely crushed the essays and copped DAT 161 MBE, so it worked.

Do you mind saying where you got this information? Seems very useful. Thanks!

[Bronx Bum]

Hey Bronx, since you're the only person in this thread (that I know of) who has passed the bar with Themis, what do you think about the long outlines?

I literally never touched them. I looked at the civil procedure one, literally spit my coffee all over the screen and laughed. They're a waste of time. You'll realize as you get later into your studying that there's just too much material. Not sure if themis sent you those condensed outlines yet but the perfect amount to have memorized COLD is somewhere between the condensed outline (which is kind of lean) and the handouts (which is too much in my opinion). There's absolutely NO way that you can memorize those big outlines. If you want to use them as a reference when you really don't get it? Then go for it. But I would ditch reading them.

As far as the state subjects (for NY specifically) there's only a certain amount of topics that have been tested. Some crazy statistic like 90%+ of the topics on any given exam were previously tested for NY. So what I did was I took every subtopic that has ever been tested in NY (since like 1995) and listed the elements on a sheet. For example, I'd have a page for Corporations and I would say "To remove a director you need X, Y and Z." Very simply. I took two full days to do that for every subject and I read through it 5 times before bed every night. No matter how small I had to write, I promised myself I wouldn't go over one page, front and back for each subject. I didn't. By doing that you had EVERYTHING you needed to pass the bar on like 20 sheets of paper. It helped mentally.

Then I just did every MBE question I could get my hands on. I used themis for their great question bank and great essay bank. I did the flex study. I know I absolutely crushed the essays and copped DAT 161 MBE, so it worked.

Do you mind saying where you got this information? Seems very useful. Thanks!

For New York, seperac.com. Other sites probably have the essays on their bar website.

[Stringer6]

Almost wrt running out of study time bc I waited last minute, not based on score. Just tryin to help some ppl bro.

Cool. Just got confused. Got a bit worried when you said you almost failed and then said you killed the essays and got 161 MBE. You passed by a mile! Didn't realize you were just talking about the time crunch.

[Gotti]

This might be a stupid question, but can someone please explain why the harm wasn't reasonably foreseeable in the following question? Thanks!


To allow for the plowing of major streets, a city ordinance prohibited parking on major streets, defined in the ordinance, between 4 a.m. and 9 a.m. when it snowed more than one inch. The defendant left his car parked on a major street near his house while he went on an overnight business trip. Contrary to the weather forecast, it snowed five inches the night the defendant was gone. The next morning, the plaintiff walked to work along the same major street. He decided to walk in the street, as it had been plowed, while the sidewalks were still covered with snow. When he walked around the defendant’s car at around 8 a.m., he was hit by a city bus. The plaintiff has sued the defendant for negligence. The plaintiff has moved for summary judgment, arguing that the defendant’s conduct amounts to negligence per se. The jurisdiction recognizes pure comparative negligence. Is the plaintiff likely to prevail?
A. No, because the defendant’s act did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injury.
B. No, because the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to his injury.
C. Yes, because the defendant’s violation of the ordinance amounts to per se negligence.
D. Yes, because the jurisdiction recognizes pure comparative negligence.

Answer choice A is correct. In order for a defendant’s act to be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, the harm suffered by the plaintiff must be reasonably foreseeable. Here, neither the intervening cause of the plaintiff’s injury nor the resulting harm were foreseeable. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot establish negligence.

[northwood]

This might be a stupid question, but can someone please explain why the harm wasn't reasonably foreseeable in the following question? Thanks!


To allow for the plowing of major streets, a city ordinance prohibited parking on major streets, defined in the ordinance, between 4 a.m. and 9 a.m. when it snowed more than one inch. The defendant left his car parked on a major street near his house while he went on an overnight business trip. Contrary to the weather forecast, it snowed five inches the night the defendant was gone. The next morning, the plaintiff walked to work along the same major street. He decided to walk in the street, as it had been plowed, while the sidewalks were still covered with snow. When he walked around the defendant’s car at around 8 a.m., he was hit by a city bus. The plaintiff has sued the defendant for negligence. The plaintiff has moved for summary judgment, arguing that the defendant’s conduct amounts to negligence per se. The jurisdiction recognizes pure comparative negligence. Is the plaintiff likely to prevail?
A. No, because the defendant’s act did not proximately cause the plaintiff’s injury.
B. No, because the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to his injury.
C. Yes, because the defendant’s violation of the ordinance amounts to per se negligence.
D. Yes, because the jurisdiction recognizes pure comparative negligence.

Answer choice A is correct. In order for a defendant’s act to be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, the harm suffered by the plaintiff must be reasonably foreseeable. Here, neither the intervening cause of the plaintiff’s injury nor the resulting harm were foreseeable. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot establish negligence.

Because the plaintiff walked in the street. The parked car did not cause his injury, but rather the city bus in the road that proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. The car being illegally parked on the street violated a statute, but the statute was designed to enable snow plow drivers to more effectively/ efficiently plow snow. The intent of the statute was to 1) lessen the possibility of municipal snow plows causing damage to parked cars, and 2) to ensure that as much snow as possible would be cleared. The harm that the statute was designed to protect was harm to parked cars, not harm to people walking in the street. The statute was not intended to do anything/ apply to city buses. Therefore, the defendant's violation was not the proximate cause for the plaintiff's injuries.. The plaintiff's injuries were caused by the driver of the city bus that actually struck him


Look at the purpose of the statute. The intent of the statute was not to protect people walking in the streets, but rather the intent of the statute was to lessen the risk/ chance of cars being damaged by municipal plows and to ensure that the streets were cleared of snow.

[swfangirl]

Got another essay back, where, again, after I said: "State X does not recognize Y. Therefore, the court should not grant the request for Y." My grader tells me that's "not true"--I stated that State X does not recognize Y correctly, but conclude contrary to the rule. WHAT?

My grader keeps misreading my essay and giving me feedback that just shows she's not reading it. This is really really frustrating. Is there any way to get a new grader?

[Genuine4ps]

Got another essay back, where, again, after I said: "State X does not recognize Y. Therefore, the court should not grant the request for Y." My grader tells me that's "not true"--I stated that State X does not recognize Y correctly, but conclude contrary to the rule. WHAT?

My grader keeps misreading my essay and giving me feedback that just shows she's not reading it. This is really really frustrating. Is there any way to get a new grader?

I'm skeptical as to how much stock you can put into your grader's feedback. Think about it--it's some person who is doing this stuff in the evening and just wants to get through it as quickly as possible. They certainly do not have the time (or don't want) to put much thought into it. I'm sure they give the same generic feedback (e.g., do IRAC, analyze more, etc.).

I think what's most productive is doing the essays and looking at the model answers.