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

[learntolift]

i found most of this 50 problem set to be extremely weird and nuanced. anyone else?


edit: i am not even done. just did 27 and 28, missed both and about threw my pen. wtf are these questions?


edit: finished 17-3 in last 20 and saved my score....did so bad before that though

[mvp99]

My 2014 macbook pro keyboard stopped working for like 5 minutes after reopening. Time to buy a new computer, pay the $50, and have soft test installed on a new computer for the exam?

[SLS_AMG]

My 2014 macbook pro keyboard stopped working for like 5 minutes after reopening. Time to buy a new computer, pay the $50, and have soft test installed on a new computer for the exam?

I probably wouldn't. Based on your posts, I think you're in pretty good shape even if the bizarre happened and you ended up hand writing. But it's up to you. If you use sheets of Benjamins as gift wrapping paper, go for it.

[LionelHutzJD]

Take it to the "genius" bar.

[WhiskeynCoke]

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.

I think you are misunderstanding the point of the Statute of Frauds and why it exists, as well as what a "deed" is. A deed does not represent ownership in land, it establishes a conveyance of that land. In other words, a house doesn't belong to a person simply by virtue of them physically holding the deed itself. The point of a written deed is that it memorializes a transaction in writing to prove a conveyance actually happened. If you have conveyance A and conveyance B, you can't use the writing from conveyance A to prove that conveyance B happened.

The fact that "only the grantor and grantee names are different" isn't a "scrivener error." The writing memorializes a completely different transaction. There was no writing for conveyance B and so the statute of frauds renders it ineffective. (If brother both paid $ and occupied the house that could establish the conveyance, but the facts don't state that here.)

Hope that helps.

[FrolicNotDetour]

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.

I think you are misunderstanding the point of the Statute of Frauds and why it exists, as well as what a "deed" is. A deed does not represent ownership in land, it establishes a conveyance of that land. In other words, a house doesn't belong to a person simply by virtue of them physically holding the deed itself. The point of a written deed is that it memorializes a transaction in writing to prove a conveyance actually happened. If you have conveyance A and conveyance B, you can't use the writing from conveyance A to prove that conveyance B happened.

The fact that "only the grantor and grantee names are different" isn't a "scrivener error." The writing memorializes a completely different transaction. There was no writing for conveyance B and so the statute of frauds renders it ineffective. (If brother both paid $ and occupied the house that could establish the conveyance, but the facts don't state that here.)

Hope that helps.

But there's no requirement that a deed must memorialize only one conveyance, right? What the law requires for a valid conveyance is a valid offer, a valid acceptance and a deed with sufficient details to indicate the conveyance (e.g., signatures of the relevant parties, price and land description). That's all here.

Besides, statute of frauds is a defense that must be raised. If neither party raises it, and I think we can all agree here that neither party would on these facts, you can't assume it'll be raised willy-nilly by the court because that's not how SoF works. Even if it was raised there is a quitclaim deed: it is a writing (provided it satisfies SoF's minimal requirements, which a quitclaim deed would easily do), and SoF doesn't pertain to disputes about the legitimacy or providence of writings, merely agreements lacking them. That is, SoF is entirely beside the point here because the only way it could come into play is if could be proven there was no conveyance because the writing is worthless, which would defeat the point of even trotting out SoF because, again, they just proved that there was no conveyance. This is why the answer explanation does not have any discussion of statute of frauds because SoF teases the line of inapplicable and irrelevant here. The only effect it could have would be limit parol evidence. Here, however, the amount of parole evidence that can be introduced is almost unlimited because the very nature of a quitclaim deed leaves everything but the grantor, grantee and land description and price blank.

[ArtistOfManliness]

My 2014 macbook pro keyboard stopped working for like 5 minutes after reopening. Time to buy a new computer, pay the $50, and have soft test installed on a new computer for the exam?

Only the keyboard? Buy an external and have it on hand on test day

[jj252525]

My 2014 macbook pro keyboard stopped working for like 5 minutes after reopening. Time to buy a new computer, pay the $50, and have soft test installed on a new computer for the exam?

Only the keyboard? Buy an external and have it on hand on test day

Somewhat related - for all of law school I've had a wired USB mouse I've used in class with my laptop. I'm assuming I'm not allowed to use this on the bar?

[fauxpsych]

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.

"Every answer we told you to ignore, because they are bullshit, is correct today. Whoops."

8/18 btw. I made a lot of dumb reading errors though.

[fauxpsych]

My 2014 macbook pro keyboard stopped working for like 5 minutes after reopening. Time to buy a new computer, pay the $50, and have soft test installed on a new computer for the exam?

Only the keyboard? Buy an external and have it on hand on test day

Somewhat related - for all of law school I've had a wired USB mouse I've used in class with my laptop. I'm assuming I'm not allowed to use this on the bar?

For NY, no peripherals.

"NO electronic devices of any kind including but not limited to cell phones, Blackberries, iPhones, PDAs, wireless e-mail devices, blue tooth
devices (including wireless mice and keyboards), iPods, MP3 players, pagers, calculators, clocks, cameras, scanners, radios, recording
devices, hand-held computers, programmable or “smart” watches, Fitbits or other fitness tracking devices, etc."

[ellewoods123]

does anyone have a quick mini review of K rules regarding who can sue whom in the assignor/assignee/obligor situations? I'm struggling

[whitecollar23]

So supposedly you're allowed to bring an external mouse or keyboard if it's "wired." Can we all make a pact not to do so? During one of my finals this semester, I had some guy sitting two seats away from me with an external keyboard and the thing was impossibly distracting. Had to change my seat.

We can't change seats because of people like that during the Bar, right? I'd basically be screwed?

[fauxpsych]

So supposedly you're allowed to bring an external mouse or keyboard if it's "wired." Can we all make a pact not to do so? During one of my finals this semester, I had some guy sitting two seats away from me with an external keyboard and the thing was impossibly distracting. Had to change my seat.

We can't change seats because of people like that during the Bar, right? I'd basically be screwed?

Where did you hear that from? Am I reading too much into "including but not limited to"?

[whitecollar23]

So supposedly you're allowed to bring an external mouse or keyboard if it's "wired." Can we all make a pact not to do so? During one of my finals this semester, I had some guy sitting two seats away from me with an external keyboard and the thing was impossibly distracting. Had to change my seat.

We can't change seats because of people like that during the Bar, right? I'd basically be screwed?

Where did you hear that from? Am I reading too much into "including but not limited to"?

Just read it again, and now I'm not sure. It says you can't have wireless ones but doesn't say anything about wired ones. That's a bit odd.

[whitecollar23]

Anyone know if a clear 1L Nalgene water bottle ("container") with a green cap, but clear bottle is allowed into the exam?

[mvp99]

does anyone have a quick mini review of K rules regarding who can sue whom in the assignor/assignee/obligor situations? I'm struggling

+1

I'm having trouble retaining this information. Here what's applicable is third party beneficiaries rules, right? b/c there's usually no K privity between assignee and and the other party who's not the assignor.

Also... what party is the obligor/obligee? (A promises B to do X and A assigns K to C)

[ellewoods123]

does anyone have a quick mini review of K rules regarding who can sue whom in the assignor/assignee/obligor situations? I'm struggling

+1

I'm having trouble retaining this information. Here what's applicable is third party beneficiaries rules, right? b/c there's usually no K privity between assignee and and the other party who's not the assignor.

Also... what party is the obligor/obligee? (A promises B to do X and A assigns K to C)

I literally have no idea. Also - does anyone else feel like when answering K's MBE's you can't exactly articulate the rule underlying why you picked the right answer but instead you picked it because it seemed like the fair result? Thats me, a lot. Which is not necessarily a problem for MBEs but for a Ks essay I feel really screwed because I cannot get a handle on the big picture rules and what applies where and instead my thought process goes into "well, that seems like the fair result" but I could not articulate "Here, UCC xyz applies which states that...".

I hope theres not a Ks essay..and there is 100% going to be.

[LionelHutzJD]

Fuck these MPT's. What is the scaling like on these?

[sublime]

Fuck these MPT's. What is the scaling like on these?

I have heard that they are relatively easy points, and it isn't hard to get a 4 if you have any clue what you are doing.

[WhiskeynCoke]

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.

I think you are misunderstanding the point of the Statute of Frauds and why it exists, as well as what a "deed" is. A deed does not represent ownership in land, it establishes a conveyance of that land. In other words, a house doesn't belong to a person simply by virtue of them physically holding the deed itself. The point of a written deed is that it memorializes a transaction in writing to prove a conveyance actually happened. If you have conveyance A and conveyance B, you can't use the writing from conveyance A to prove that conveyance B happened.

The fact that "only the grantor and grantee names are different" isn't a "scrivener error." The writing memorializes a completely different transaction. There was no writing for conveyance B and so the statute of frauds renders it ineffective. (If brother both paid $ and occupied the house that could establish the conveyance, but the facts don't state that here.)

Hope that helps.

But there's no requirement that a deed must memorialize only one conveyance, right? What the law requires for a valid conveyance is a valid offer, a valid acceptance and a deed with sufficient details to indicate the conveyance (e.g., signatures of the relevant parties, price and land description). That's all here.

Besides, statute of frauds is a defense that must be raised. If neither party raises it, and I think we can all agree here that neither party would on these facts, you can't assume it'll be raised willy-nilly by the court because that's not how SoF works. Even if it was raised there is a quitclaim deed: it is a writing (provided it satisfies SoF's minimal requirements, which a quitclaim deed would easily do), and SoF doesn't pertain to disputes about the legitimacy or providence of writings, merely agreements lacking them. That is, SoF is entirely beside the point here because the only way it could come into play is if could be proven there was no conveyance because the writing is worthless, which would defeat the point of even trotting out SoF because, again, they just proved that there was no conveyance. This is why the answer explanation does not have any discussion of statute of frauds because SoF teases the line of inapplicable and irrelevant here. The only effect it could have would be limit parol evidence. Here, however, the amount of parole evidence that can be introduced is almost unlimited because the very nature of a quitclaim deed leaves everything but the grantor, grantee and land description and price blank.

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

Look, I'm trying to help you understand property and how it works on the MBE because you asked for that. Trust me, you are missing the point here. A land conveyance (or ANY contract for that matter) does not become valid and enforceable just because the parties don't dispute it. This hypo doesn't need to say the friend disputed it, because the friend could still come by tomorrow and assert title because the friend still owns title (as long as statute of limitations hasn't run). The conveyance of title requires a valid, written deed.

Here, there was no deed whatsoever for the second conveyance. Disagree? Point to the part of the fact pattern that says something was written down about the second conveyance. It would be different if the parties took the first deed and swapped the grantor & grantee names and resigned it, because that would be a new writing.

Any time the MBE asks you about who owns title to property, you need to assume they mean if a dispute arises. Otherwise, all these laws and requirements are meaningless because no one needs to comply with them if they just never fight about it.

[FrolicNotDetour]

Again, I think SoF is outside the scope of the question because it doesn't ask about litigation between the two. It asks strictly about a conveyance. I can give you my property orally, which gives you an interest, no matter how unenforceable, then I can eject you with a SoF defense--but you still evidently have an interest until I do. That's the whole idea of SoF as an affirmative defense, it allows during litigation what are technically valid interests to become invalid because proof and efficiency are sometimes > > truth yet it doesn't (important!) require defendants to do so. Which is great, it doesn't change the underlying legitimacy of conveyance. If I have a heart, I don't raise the defense and that oral conveyance from me to you, which is otherwise valid, remains valid. The defense can make the conveyance fruitless, and dumb and invalid but it does not need to because no defendant is required to do so (and ideally, like in the question, will not do so in bad faith). The reason these two opposite results can occur is because the conveyance is valid regardless of whether SoF comes into play.

But even if the question was about litigation and the friend comes later and attempts to eject the brother, what both parties will point to is a writing, the quit claim deed, which places the argument out of the statute of frauds. If the conveyance is valid, then it is valid because of the writing. Thus no SoF. If the conveyance is invalid, then it is invalid because of the writing. Again, no need to raise SoF.

I'm looking for a right answer, preferably something that seems rationally related to the explanation provided rather than baseless conjecture.

[whitecollar23]

Anyone else more stressed about being stuck near another test-taker who smells awful or is extremely noisy than about the material at this point? Because this stress is real. Really real.

[WhiskeynCoke]

Again, I think SoF is outside the scope of the question because it doesn't ask about litigation between the two. It asks strictly about a conveyance. I can give you my property orally, which gives you an interest, no matter how unenforceable, then I can eject you with a SoF defense--but you still evidently have an interest until I do.

But even if the question was about litigation and the friend comes later and attempts to eject the brother, what both parties will point to is a writing, the quit claim deed, which places the argument out of the statute of frauds. If the conveyance is valid, then it is valid because of the writing. Thus no SoF. If the conveyance is invalid, then it is invalid because of the writing. Again, no need to raise SoF.

I'm looking for a right answer, preferably something that seems rationally related to the explanation provided rather than baseless conjecture.

This will be my last response because you clearly aren't actually looking for help understanding the material, just a validation of your own view of what property law should be. Judging by what you wrote above, this view is very different than what the law actually is. That's fine. I'm sure the MBE is wrong and you're right.

To summarize: (1) Giving someone property orally does NOT give them an interest (title), it only gives them possession. A conveyance of an interest in land needs to be in writing (this is called a deed). This is basic property law and if you don't understand this by now I don't know what else to tell you. (2) You don't get it - there is no writing for the second conveyance, whatsoever (as I've explained twice already). You can't use the first deed to prove the second conveyance. AT ALL. The parties can't "point to the quitclaim deed" because it only relates to the first conveyance.

This is why the answer to the hypo is "the friend and the daughter." It's not "baseless conjecture," it's basic property law.

[LionelHutzJD]

You would not have an interest, I believe you would have a license. A grant of an easement that fails to comply with the SoF results in a license. Correct me if i'm wrong.

[grixxlybear99]

Anyone recently take the MBE Diagnostic exam in the front of the MPQ book?

I found it fairly difficult but got 72 out of 100, so I'm sort of optimistic. On the other hand, its the diagnostic exam so I'm not sure if its supposed to be much easier than the Simulated Exam we took earlier