BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 (UBE -NY) Forum

[Br3v]

Exactly^

[LionelHutzJD]

Plane question (#22) was stretching it I think

Regarding #27, Barbri just completely let out a vital fact that they expected us to assume.

[+] Spoiler

Q:A developer owned a 100-acre tract of land, which he subdivided into 200 single-family residences. All deeds contained a covenant that the property would be used only for residential purposes. Two years after the last lot was sold, the developer purchased the 50-acre tract of land adjoining the subdivision. The developer constructed another group of 100 single-family residences on this land. To ensure their market- ability, the developer desired to sell them like homes in the original development, and, to that extent, intended that the deeds to the new homes contain the same restrictions as those in the original development and be enforceable in the same manner by owners in both developments.
Will the developer be successful in this plan?

Uh, well, I guess they wanted us to assume that the restriction was NOT placed into the new homes, but why would we assume that? I assumed the restriction was placed in the new homes and therefore selected (C) "Yes, the restrictions will be equally enforceable for this new project as they were for the original development."

Yup, I got 27 wrong and chose same answer as you. Thanks, Barbri

Same here.

[+] Spoiler

I figured, if he just puts the covenant into the deeds of the new development, what the hell is the issue?

THANK YOU. This was a terribly worded question. I was going to make my own post about it.

[learntolift]

8-10 on con law set 5. thank you, thank you

[jj252525]

Today's secured transaction question

[+] Spoiler

Twice in three essays a new rule has popped up not in the lecture. For those of us who have not taken the subject, it's a bit annoying.

[sublime]

8-10 on con law set 5. thank you, thank you

Yea, I just grabbed 8-10 on Prop set 5. Such bullshit questions.

[lawstoodent]

Plane question (#22) was stretching it I think

Regarding #27, Barbri just completely let out a vital fact that they expected us to assume.

[+] Spoiler

Q:A developer owned a 100-acre tract of land, which he subdivided into 200 single-family residences. All deeds contained a covenant that the property would be used only for residential purposes. Two years after the last lot was sold, the developer purchased the 50-acre tract of land adjoining the subdivision. The developer constructed another group of 100 single-family residences on this land. To ensure their market- ability, the developer desired to sell them like homes in the original development, and, to that extent, intended that the deeds to the new homes contain the same restrictions as those in the original development and be enforceable in the same manner by owners in both developments.
Will the developer be successful in this plan?

Uh, well, I guess they wanted us to assume that the restriction was NOT placed into the new homes, but why would we assume that? I assumed the restriction was placed in the new homes and therefore selected (C) "Yes, the restrictions will be equally enforceable for this new project as they were for the original development."

Yup, I got 27 wrong and chose same answer as you. Thanks, Barbri

Same here.

[+] Spoiler

I figured, if he just puts the covenant into the deeds of the new development, what the hell is the issue?

Regarding #27

[+] Spoiler

I think "intended that the deeds to the new homes contain the same restrictions as those in the original development and be enforceable in the same manner by owners in both developments" was the main reason I chose (D) over (C).

If the developer wanted owners in both developments to enforce covenants in both the new and the old subdivisions, it wouldn't matter if they had the restriction or not so long as it was apart of the common scheme and development. If it is apart of the common scheme and development, then it can be enforceable by prior purchasers. If not, the old owners can only enforce the covenant with respect to their subdivision and the new owners could only enforce with respect to their subdivision.

Not sure if that makes sense, but that's how I thought of it.

[mvp99]

are you guys studying more than usual this final week? I feel like studying the same amount, like 8 hours a day at most. I feel like I'm close to burning out.

[judgefudge]

Plane question (#22) was stretching it I think

Regarding #27, Barbri just completely let out a vital fact that they expected us to assume.

[+] Spoiler

Q:A developer owned a 100-acre tract of land, which he subdivided into 200 single-family residences. All deeds contained a covenant that the property would be used only for residential purposes. Two years after the last lot was sold, the developer purchased the 50-acre tract of land adjoining the subdivision. The developer constructed another group of 100 single-family residences on this land. To ensure their market- ability, the developer desired to sell them like homes in the original development, and, to that extent, intended that the deeds to the new homes contain the same restrictions as those in the original development and be enforceable in the same manner by owners in both developments.
Will the developer be successful in this plan?

Uh, well, I guess they wanted us to assume that the restriction was NOT placed into the new homes, but why would we assume that? I assumed the restriction was placed in the new homes and therefore selected (C) "Yes, the restrictions will be equally enforceable for this new project as they were for the original development."

Yup, I got 27 wrong and chose same answer as you. Thanks, Barbri

Same here.

[+] Spoiler

I figured, if he just puts the covenant into the deeds of the new development, what the hell is the issue?

Regarding #27

[+] Spoiler

I think "intended that the deeds to the new homes contain the same restrictions as those in the original development and be enforceable in the same manner by owners in both developments" was the main reason I chose (D) over (C).

If the developer wanted owners in both developments to enforce covenants in both the new and the old subdivisions, it wouldn't matter if they had the restriction or not so long as it was apart of the common scheme and development. If it is apart of the common scheme and development, then it can be enforceable by prior purchasers. If not, the old owners can only enforce the covenant with respect to their subdivision and the new owners could only enforce with respect to their subdivision.

Not sure if that makes sense, but that's how I thought of it.

[+] Spoiler

I think you're right, that this is what they were trying to test. I read it as "Are both of them separately enforceable" and they wanted us to read it as "Can an owner from the first lot enforce the covenant against an owner from the second lot?" Which, come to think of it, would have been a much better way to ask the question. I got it wrong, and I think it can be read both ways.

[judgefudge]

are you guys studying more than usual this final week? I feel like studying the same amount, like 8 hours a day at most. I feel like I'm close to burning out.

I don't think I'm studying more than usual. I think I'm studying more closely--as in, I'm trying not to listen to music or watch TV or have a conversation or eat or drink wine while I'm studying, haha. I've been very religiously doing what Barbri tells me to do, and then doing 25-30 Adaptibar questions in whatever subject Barbri had me studying that day. I think, as the week comes to a close, I'm going to keep following Barbri day-by-day, but also start doing more on Adaptibar. I think I've been working 7:30am-6pm (give or take an hour) but with an hour break at the gym, and an hour break for lunch. So roughly 8-9 hours.

[lawstoodent]

Plane question (#22) was stretching it I think

Regarding #27, Barbri just completely let out a vital fact that they expected us to assume.

[+] Spoiler

Q:A developer owned a 100-acre tract of land, which he subdivided into 200 single-family residences. All deeds contained a covenant that the property would be used only for residential purposes. Two years after the last lot was sold, the developer purchased the 50-acre tract of land adjoining the subdivision. The developer constructed another group of 100 single-family residences on this land. To ensure their market- ability, the developer desired to sell them like homes in the original development, and, to that extent, intended that the deeds to the new homes contain the same restrictions as those in the original development and be enforceable in the same manner by owners in both developments.
Will the developer be successful in this plan?

Uh, well, I guess they wanted us to assume that the restriction was NOT placed into the new homes, but why would we assume that? I assumed the restriction was placed in the new homes and therefore selected (C) "Yes, the restrictions will be equally enforceable for this new project as they were for the original development."

Yup, I got 27 wrong and chose same answer as you. Thanks, Barbri

Same here.

[+] Spoiler

I figured, if he just puts the covenant into the deeds of the new development, what the hell is the issue?

Regarding #27

[+] Spoiler

I think "intended that the deeds to the new homes contain the same restrictions as those in the original development and be enforceable in the same manner by owners in both developments" was the main reason I chose (D) over (C).

If the developer wanted owners in both developments to enforce covenants in both the new and the old subdivisions, it wouldn't matter if they had the restriction or not so long as it was apart of the common scheme and development. If it is apart of the common scheme and development, then it can be enforceable by prior purchasers. If not, the old owners can only enforce the covenant with respect to their subdivision and the new owners could only enforce with respect to their subdivision.

Not sure if that makes sense, but that's how I thought of it.

[+] Spoiler

I think you're right, that this is what they were trying to test. I read it as "Are both of them separately enforceable" and they wanted us to read it as "Can an owner from the first lot enforce the covenant against an owner from the second lot?" Which, come to think of it, would have been a much better way to ask the question. I got it wrong, and I think it can be read both ways.

Yeah, I think it was purposefully ambiguous. Had the call of the question just been more clear, most would've gotten it right.

[ellewoods123]

are you guys studying more than usual this final week? I feel like studying the same amount, like 8 hours a day at most. I feel like I'm close to burning out.

I don't think I'm studying more than usual. I think I'm studying more closely--as in, I'm trying not to listen to music or watch TV or have a conversation or eat or drink wine while I'm studying, haha. I've been very religiously doing what Barbri tells me to do, and then doing 25-30 Adaptibar questions in whatever subject Barbri had me studying that day. I think, as the week comes to a close, I'm going to keep following Barbri day-by-day, but also start doing more on Adaptibar. I think I've been working 7:30am-6pm (give or take an hour) but with an hour break at the gym, and an hour break for lunch. So roughly 8-9 hours.

I haven't been going any harder this week than I have been all summer, generally 8 hours as well. May kick it up a little bit next week if I feel like I need more time for straight memorization, but other than that I haven't felt a need to do more than 8 a day even though its getting close

[learntolift]

doing about 7-8 a day. doing barbri assignments then started up with emmanuels recently

[grixxlybear99]

I am ramping up this past week and next week, but stopping entirely on 7/24, Sunday afternoon.

I was following Barbri's schedule since the end of May, but have now decided to veer from the course slightly. I am still completing what Barbri assigns, but not necessarily on the same day assigned or in the same order. Instead, I have downloaded all of the MC questions in the Enrolled Student Center, such as Mixed Set 5,6,7 and Released Questions and "Drills," and incorporating them into each day. I am also testing myself on 100 MC every other day. I spend approximately 10 hours a day actually studying and maybe 1 hour or 2 hours throughout the day resting, eating, or sitting outside.

Might be a bit excessive, but I am not a natural MC-test taker.

[sublime]

How'd yall do on the 50 today? Thought it was pretty tough in parts.

Thoughts on a couple of these questions?

Question 22:

[+] Spoiler

Does showing someone a gun put them in reasonable apprehension of immediate injury? The gun wasn't pointed at them, there was no immediate injury that could have occurred. I don't get it.

Question 28:

[+] Spoiler

Does this rule even exist? How can not being able to afford to go back to a state to be sufficient grounds to defeat PJ? In the lecture, free said the "Relative wealth of the parties is not determinitive." He also said fairness would not be on the MBE. So there's that.

I did okay, around 70% Missed both those questions

imo:

[+] Spoiler

22 was just bullshit.

IIRC, the Burger King case specifically held that relative wealth doesn't really matter, so idk wtf Barbri was talking about.

[SLS_AMG]

How are you all doing as far as BarBri progress is concerned? I'm at 74%, but I'm having trouble keeping up now. I find that I'm doing the assignments slower and trying to more closely pay attention to incorrect answers and better absorb why right answers were right. I take like an hour going over a 30-set group of questions.

[LionelHutzJD]

are you guys studying more than usual this final week? I feel like studying the same amount, like 8 hours a day at most. I feel like I'm close to burning out.

I haven't been. But I might pick it up for the MEE subjects and going through the model answers which really helps me actually learn the material (secured transactions). But other than that I haven't been picking it up. I feel confident with the MBE and got 39/50 on today's set. I'll do the 100 question refresher next week. And I think there's a 100 question diagnostic in the front of the book I haven't done.

[sublime]

How are you all doing as far as BarBri progress is concerned? I'm at 74%, but I'm having trouble keeping up now. I find that I'm doing the assignments slower and trying to more closely pay attention to incorrect answers and better absorb why right answers were right. I take like an hour going over a 30-set group of questions.

I'm at 71%, but also agree that while earlier, they overestimated time, now they are underestimating.

[FrolicNotDetour]

I get a head scratcher over here.

In yesterday's 50 set there was question that threw me. I'll quote if requested but I'm not sure about all that ToS stuff I signed so the long and short is:

[+] Spoiler

A brother and a sister held record title to a
home as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
The brother moved out of the home shortly after
conveying his interest in the home to his friend
by quitclaim deed. The friend did not record his
deed. Several years later, the sister died, leaving
her adopted daughter as her sole heir. Shortly
after the sister died, the brother asked his friend
to return his deed and give up his interest in the
home. The friend agreed and returned the deed,
which the brother destroyed.

Who has title to the home?
(A) The friend and the daughter as co-tenants.
(B) The brother and the daughter as co-tenants.
(C) The brother as sole owner.
(D) The friend as sole owner.

Explanation:

The friend and the daughter own the home as co-tenants. A joint tenancy is an estate between two
or more co-tenants who have a right of survivorship—when one joint tenant dies, the property is
freed from her concurrent interest and the survivor or survivors retain an undivided right in the
property. An inter vivos conveyance by one joint tenant of his undivided interest destroys the joint
tenancy so that the transferee takes the interest as a tenant in common and not as a joint tenant.
Here, when the brother conveyed his interest to the friend, the joint tenancy between the brother
and the sister was severed. At that point, the friend and the sister held title to the home as tenants
in common. The adopted daughter then inherited the sister’s interest upon the sister’s death.
Because delivery of a deed cannot be canceled, the friend’s return and subsequent destruction
of his deed has no effect

Find the interests. Brother and sister. Brother conveys to friend. Cool. Brother wants it back. Friend agrees. Friend gives the deed to brother and brother burns it/destroys it or whatever.

The explanation is that the second conveyance wasn't a conveyance because brother wanted to get his interest back thinking that burning the deed would destroy friend's interest. Very dumb. My thought process, however, was that because the brother himself destroyed the deed then doesn't this act as a gift to the brother? The friend gives, the brother receives and at that meeting of the minds, even though they were wrong about some things, did in fact create a proper conveyance (of some kind?). They intended to reconvey and while they said it was an attempt to cancel, does this really matter when their actions constitute a sufficient reconveyance?

Thoughts appreciated because I think this is a big question that, once i understad, helps out all of property.

[LionelHutzJD]

But seriously though,

we are all ready.

[sublime]

I get a head scratcher over here.

In yesterday's 50 set there was question that threw me. I'll quote if requested but I'm not sure about all that ToS stuff I signed so the long and short is:

[+] Spoiler

A brother and a sister held record title to a
home as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
The brother moved out of the home shortly after
conveying his interest in the home to his friend
by quitclaim deed. The friend did not record his
deed. Several years later, the sister died, leaving
her adopted daughter as her sole heir. Shortly
after the sister died, the brother asked his friend
to return his deed and give up his interest in the
home. The friend agreed and returned the deed,
which the brother destroyed.

Who has title to the home?
(A) The friend and the daughter as co-tenants.
(B) The brother and the daughter as co-tenants.
(C) The brother as sole owner.
(D) The friend as sole owner.

Explanation:

The friend and the daughter own the home as co-tenants. A joint tenancy is an estate between two
or more co-tenants who have a right of survivorship—when one joint tenant dies, the property is
freed from her concurrent interest and the survivor or survivors retain an undivided right in the
property. An inter vivos conveyance by one joint tenant of his undivided interest destroys the joint
tenancy so that the transferee takes the interest as a tenant in common and not as a joint tenant.
Here, when the brother conveyed his interest to the friend, the joint tenancy between the brother
and the sister was severed. At that point, the friend and the sister held title to the home as tenants
in common. The adopted daughter then inherited the sister’s interest upon the sister’s death.
Because delivery of a deed cannot be canceled, the friend’s return and subsequent destruction
of his deed has no effect

Find the interests. Brother and sister. Brother conveys to friend. Cool. Brother wants it back. Friend agrees. Friend gives the deed to brother and brother burns it/destroys it or whatever.

The explanation is that the second conveyance wasn't a conveyance because brother wanted to get his interest back thinking that burning the deed would destroy friend's interest. Very dumb. My thought process, however, was that because the brother himself destroyed the deed then doesn't this act as a gift to the brother? The friend gives, the brother receives and at that meeting of the minds, even though they were wrong about some things, did in fact create a proper conveyance (of some kind?). They intended to reconvey and while they said it was an attempt to cancel, does this really matter when their actions constitute a sufficient reconveyance?

Thoughts appreciated because I think this is a big question that, once i understad, helps out all of property.

I don;t know enought about prop to help, but we have been using spoiler tags for people who haven't taken the set yet.

[FrolicNotDetour]

I get a head scratcher over here.

In yesterday's 50 set there was question that threw me. I'll quote if requested but I'm not sure about all that ToS stuff I signed so the long and short is:

[+] Spoiler

A brother and a sister held record title to a
home as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
The brother moved out of the home shortly after
conveying his interest in the home to his friend
by quitclaim deed. The friend did not record his
deed. Several years later, the sister died, leaving
her adopted daughter as her sole heir. Shortly
after the sister died, the brother asked his friend
to return his deed and give up his interest in the
home. The friend agreed and returned the deed,
which the brother destroyed.

Who has title to the home?
(A) The friend and the daughter as co-tenants.
(B) The brother and the daughter as co-tenants.
(C) The brother as sole owner.
(D) The friend as sole owner.

Explanation:

The friend and the daughter own the home as co-tenants. A joint tenancy is an estate between two
or more co-tenants who have a right of survivorship—when one joint tenant dies, the property is
freed from her concurrent interest and the survivor or survivors retain an undivided right in the
property. An inter vivos conveyance by one joint tenant of his undivided interest destroys the joint
tenancy so that the transferee takes the interest as a tenant in common and not as a joint tenant.
Here, when the brother conveyed his interest to the friend, the joint tenancy between the brother
and the sister was severed. At that point, the friend and the sister held title to the home as tenants
in common. The adopted daughter then inherited the sister’s interest upon the sister’s death.
Because delivery of a deed cannot be canceled, the friend’s return and subsequent destruction
of his deed has no effect

Find the interests. Brother and sister. Brother conveys to friend. Cool. Brother wants it back. Friend agrees. Friend gives the deed to brother and brother burns it/destroys it or whatever.

The explanation is that the second conveyance wasn't a conveyance because brother wanted to get his interest back thinking that burning the deed would destroy friend's interest. Very dumb. My thought process, however, was that because the brother himself destroyed the deed then doesn't this act as a gift to the brother? The friend gives, the brother receives and at that meeting of the minds, even though they were wrong about some things, did in fact create a proper conveyance (of some kind?). They intended to reconvey and while they said it was an attempt to cancel, does this really matter when their actions constitute a sufficient reconveyance?

Thoughts appreciated because I think this is a big question that, once i understad, helps out all of property.

I don;t know enought about prop to help, but we have been using spoiler tags for people who haven't taken the set yet.

I think a kind mod beat you to it.

[sublime]

I get a head scratcher over here.

In yesterday's 50 set there was question that threw me. I'll quote if requested but I'm not sure about all that ToS stuff I signed so the long and short is:

[+] Spoiler

A brother and a sister held record title to a
home as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
The brother moved out of the home shortly after
conveying his interest in the home to his friend
by quitclaim deed. The friend did not record his
deed. Several years later, the sister died, leaving
her adopted daughter as her sole heir. Shortly
after the sister died, the brother asked his friend
to return his deed and give up his interest in the
home. The friend agreed and returned the deed,
which the brother destroyed.

Who has title to the home?
(A) The friend and the daughter as co-tenants.
(B) The brother and the daughter as co-tenants.
(C) The brother as sole owner.
(D) The friend as sole owner.

Explanation:

The friend and the daughter own the home as co-tenants. A joint tenancy is an estate between two
or more co-tenants who have a right of survivorship—when one joint tenant dies, the property is
freed from her concurrent interest and the survivor or survivors retain an undivided right in the
property. An inter vivos conveyance by one joint tenant of his undivided interest destroys the joint
tenancy so that the transferee takes the interest as a tenant in common and not as a joint tenant.
Here, when the brother conveyed his interest to the friend, the joint tenancy between the brother
and the sister was severed. At that point, the friend and the sister held title to the home as tenants
in common. The adopted daughter then inherited the sister’s interest upon the sister’s death.
Because delivery of a deed cannot be canceled, the friend’s return and subsequent destruction
of his deed has no effect

Find the interests. Brother and sister. Brother conveys to friend. Cool. Brother wants it back. Friend agrees. Friend gives the deed to brother and brother burns it/destroys it or whatever.

The explanation is that the second conveyance wasn't a conveyance because brother wanted to get his interest back thinking that burning the deed would destroy friend's interest. Very dumb. My thought process, however, was that because the brother himself destroyed the deed then doesn't this act as a gift to the brother? The friend gives, the brother receives and at that meeting of the minds, even though they were wrong about some things, did in fact create a proper conveyance (of some kind?). They intended to reconvey and while they said it was an attempt to cancel, does this really matter when their actions constitute a sufficient reconveyance?

Thoughts appreciated because I think this is a big question that, once i understad, helps out all of property.

I don;t know enought about prop to help, but we have been using spoiler tags for people who haven't taken the set yet.

I think a kind mod beat you to it.

Yea, it was me. Nbd, just fyi for any future problems!

[JoeySkoko]

I don;t know enought about prop to help, but we have been using spoiler tags for people who haven't taken the set yet.

[+] Spoiler

my understanding is that the return and destruction of the deed is not enough to "return" the land,or reverse the transaction so to speak - it's merely symbolic. they would have to execute a new deed to transfer it back

[FrolicNotDetour]

I get a head scratcher over here.

In yesterday's 50 set there was question that threw me. I'll quote if requested but I'm not sure about all that ToS stuff I signed so the long and short is:

[+] Spoiler

A brother and a sister held record title to a
home as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
The brother moved out of the home shortly after
conveying his interest in the home to his friend
by quitclaim deed. The friend did not record his
deed. Several years later, the sister died, leaving
her adopted daughter as her sole heir. Shortly
after the sister died, the brother asked his friend
to return his deed and give up his interest in the
home. The friend agreed and returned the deed,
which the brother destroyed.

Who has title to the home?
(A) The friend and the daughter as co-tenants.
(B) The brother and the daughter as co-tenants.
(C) The brother as sole owner.
(D) The friend as sole owner.

Explanation:

The friend and the daughter own the home as co-tenants. A joint tenancy is an estate between two
or more co-tenants who have a right of survivorship—when one joint tenant dies, the property is
freed from her concurrent interest and the survivor or survivors retain an undivided right in the
property. An inter vivos conveyance by one joint tenant of his undivided interest destroys the joint
tenancy so that the transferee takes the interest as a tenant in common and not as a joint tenant.
Here, when the brother conveyed his interest to the friend, the joint tenancy between the brother
and the sister was severed. At that point, the friend and the sister held title to the home as tenants
in common. The adopted daughter then inherited the sister’s interest upon the sister’s death.
Because delivery of a deed cannot be canceled, the friend’s return and subsequent destruction
of his deed has no effect

Find the interests. Brother and sister. Brother conveys to friend. Cool. Brother wants it back. Friend agrees. Friend gives the deed to brother and brother burns it/destroys it or whatever.

The explanation is that the second conveyance wasn't a conveyance because brother wanted to get his interest back thinking that burning the deed would destroy friend's interest. Very dumb. My thought process, however, was that because the brother himself destroyed the deed then doesn't this act as a gift to the brother? The friend gives, the brother receives and at that meeting of the minds, even though they were wrong about some things, did in fact create a proper conveyance (of some kind?). They intended to reconvey and while they said it was an attempt to cancel, does this really matter when their actions constitute a sufficient reconveyance?

Thoughts appreciated because I think this is a big question that, once i understad, helps out all of property.

I don;t know enought about prop to help, but we have been using spoiler tags for people who haven't taken the set yet.

I think a kind mod beat you to it.

Yea, it was me. Nbd, just fyi for any future problems!

For sure man, thank you!

I don;t know enought about prop to help, but we have been using spoiler tags for people who haven't taken the set yet.

[+] Spoiler

my understanding is that the return and destruction of the deed is not enough to "return" the land,or reverse the transaction so to speak - it's merely symbolic. they would have to execute a new deed to transfer it back

I agree, no doubt. I guess my question is more like why they specified that the brother got the deed, because there's no requirement for a "new" deed per se just that it requires the intention to convey, acceptance by relevant party and that all the requirements of any particular deed (i.e., land and price description). In fact the only items that would be different here as compared to a 'new' deed would be the transposition of grantee and grantor name, which would imho be no different than any scrivener error.

[SLS_AMG]

lol @ today's Con Law set. The questions were bizarre. Somehow I got 13/18, but I felt like I was guessing on all but like 3 questions. I also felt as I was going through that I had forgotten everything I had learned about con law.