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

[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.

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.

Every time Barbri has a statute of frauds question it at least mentions statute of frauds in the answer. More importantly the explanation rests on the quality of the conveyance, which is so far away from affirmative defenses generally it's impossible to take seriously. You regurgitate "a conveyance of an interest in land needs to be in writing" forgetting that the purpose is to insulate the resulting interest from SoF, not because such a conveyance would be per se invalid.

If there was a question on the bar re: Blackacre like "I tell you I am going to sell you Blackacre. You give me 10,000. I agree. You enter. We litigate. I don't raise SoF. You win." Then you would have an interest because of course the conveyance, which was never litigated, was valid and gave you an interest in the title that you claimed right from the get go was title. That's why SoF exists as an *affirmative* defense. It's affirmative to allow good faith situations exactly like the one listed in the question to occur if the conveyance is otherwise valid. It's bogus to claim that oral conveyances could never, ever, give title because you can claim, not to mention win, based on an oral conveyance. If you were even half right about the law we wouldn't classify SoF as a defense at all, it would fall on the plaintiff's burden (not defendant's!!) under one of the presumptive requirements for a case to be heard in the first place.

There is a writing for the second conveyance. I'm sorry, but you can point to the first deed to prove the second conveyance the same as anyone would prove the second conveyance of any deed in equity. It doesn't change just because brother isn't a bank.

[bwh8813]

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.

Every time Barbri has a statute of frauds question it at least mentions statute of frauds in the answer. More importantly the explanation rests on the quality of the conveyance, which is so far away from affirmative defenses generally it's impossible to take seriously. You regurgitate "a conveyance of an interest in land needs to be in writing" forgetting that the purpose is to insulate the resulting interest from SoF, not because such a conveyance would be per se invalid.

If there was a question on the bar re: Blackacre like "I tell you I am going to sell you Blackacre. You give me 10,000. I agree. You enter. We litigate. I don't raise SoF. You win." Then you would have an interest because of course the conveyance, which was never litigated, was valid and gave you an interest in the title that you claimed right from the get go was title. That's why SoF exists as an *affirmative* defense. It's bogus to claim that oral conveyances could never, ever, give title because you can claim, and win, based on an oral conveyance.

There is a writing for the second conveyance. I'm sorry, but you can point to the first deed to prove the second conveyance the same as anyone would prove the second conveyance of any deed in equity. It doesn't change just because brother isn't a bank.

I don't know why I'm jumping in here because you clearly do not want to understand the correct explanations, which WnC has given you, but here goes.

The brother in the question validly conveyed his interest to the friend. With that conveyance, brother relinquished all his rights/interest in the land. If he wants it back, he can't simply take possession of the deed (which is just a contract) and tear it up. That does nothing for him - it was already signed, sealed, delivered. The friend must validly convey the land back to him, by way of a deed in which the friend is grantor and brother grantee, in order for him to regain any interests in the land. That's about as simple as it can be explained.

As for your hypo above, it would negate the SoF because the purchaser gave value and took possession. If you have an oral conveyance of land, it is invalid. Courts will use equity to give it legal effect if 2 of 3 are met: give value, take possession, make improvements.

I hope that helps and we can all move on.

[FrolicNotDetour]

I don't know why I'm jumping in here because you clearly do not want to understand the correct explanations, which WnC has given you, but here goes.

The brother in the question validly conveyed his interest to the friend. With that conveyance, brother relinquished all his rights/interest in the land. If he wants it back, he can't simply take possession of the deed (which is just a contract) and tear it up. That does nothing for him - it was already signed, sealed, delivered. The friend must validly convey the land back to him, by way of a deed in which the friend is grantor and brother grantee, in order for him to regain any interests in the land. That's about as simple as it can be explained.

Which I guess it what it boils down to. Sometimes the grantor and grantee names can be switched, maybe they can't. I guess this question it was a can't.

As for your hypo above, it would negate the SoF because the purchaser gave value and took possession. If you have an oral conveyance of land, it is invalid. Courts will use equity to give it legal effect if 2 of 3 are met: give value, take possession, make improvements.

I hope that helps and we can all move on.

It would negate the statute of frauds if raised. My hypo, as simple as it was, tried as best as it could to prove that point. As a conveyance of title it's presumptively valid, oral or not, value or possession or not, because that's the nature of affirmative defenses. The opposing party has to, you know, raise them.

Hopefully that's clearer now? For instance, in my state, there's a whole section, 7 Ga. Jur. Contracts § 1:49, containing dozens of cases where on appeal someone tries to invalidate a property interest arguing, as you do, about possession and value and writing yet the court says, well, very good and all but you waived that defense so even if it is true (and in some it is something the defendant acknowledges to be true) and there was an oral conveyance without value or possession it doesn't matter. You messed up the filings or the previous law firm shit the bed and so on so the oral/non-possessory/free conveyance does exactly as the defendant/plaintiff says it does minus whatever (if any) other claims you may have.

[judgefudge]

FnD I think you're going way down the rabbit hole. Think about it in the simplest terms:

The rule for a deed is that the parties must be identified. Here, the parties are switched. It's not a scrivener error, it's just wrong. If it was tantamount to a scrivener error, the hypo would've told us that. This isn't like a will where you can just rip it up and the legal significance is gone. Don't fight the hypo. Just giving a deed back does not negate the conveyance of land. There has to be a whole new deed.

And, if you can't accept that as law, then just accept it as fact for this exam. Because we've had multiple questions on this and they've all said the same thing.

[WheatThins]

Anyone know the goal or the averages for tomorrow's 100 Q MBE refresher?

[FrolicNotDetour]

FnD I think you're going way down the rabbit hole. Think about it in the simplest terms:

The rule for a deed is that the parties must be identified. Here, the parties are switched. It's not a scrivener error, it's just wrong. If it was tantamount to a scrivener error, the hypo would've told us that. This isn't like a will where you can just rip it up and the legal significance is gone. Don't fight the hypo. Just giving a deed back does not negate the conveyance of land. There has to be a whole new deed.

And, if you can't accept that as law, then just accept it as fact for this exam. Because we've had multiple questions on this and they've all said the same thing.

To be honest, I came in here wanting to get my 94% to a 100%. I'd totally be fine at this point with fighting it and eating this one when it comes down to it because not a joke I really think it would be unethical, or at least questionable, if in a case like that I plead the statute of frauds knowing as I did that sure, you're right, the conveyance was wrong, but I would also know that the claim that it was legitimate was not a fraudulent claim or in bad faith especially because there was an agreement.

[judgefudge]

To be honest, I came in here wanting to get my 94% to a 100%. I'd totally be fine at this point with fighting it and eating this one when it comes down to it because not a joke I really think it would be unethical, or at least questionable, if in a case like that I plead the statute of frauds knowing as I did that sure, you're right, the conveyance was wrong, but I would also know that the claim that it was legitimate was not a fraudulent claim or in bad faith especially because there was an agreement.

I don't know about that. The way I see it, we invalidate things because they didn't comply with formalities all the time. The intent of the parties isn't always going to rule. If something violates the Rule Against Perpetuities, we take it out and pretend it didn't exist, even though the grantor's intent was completely to the contrary. If the deed is to the wrong person from the wrong person, we invalidate your conveyance. But that's just my two cents. I don't have a 94% on property, so I guess I'll go back to studying!

[fauxpsych]

Fucking pissed at the bullshit in that 50 q set and these recent sets. I have fallen way behind the fucking goals and can not for the life of me break 60%, which was essentially my 200 q score.

Ugh, was hoping to not have to still worry about MBE BS this weekend and could just start hammering out essay rule statements.

[judgefudge]

Quick kind of random question. For Full Faith and Credit, is a judgment that is being appealed a final judgment? I think the answer is that it's not, and that's what it also says in my lecture notes, but I can't actually find that anywhere else other than my lecture notes, so I wanted to confirm.

[MCFC]

Anyone know the goal or the averages for tomorrow's 100 Q MBE refresher?

56/100.

[MCFC]

Here's a minor question. In the additional Practice Questions for each subject there is a Set A, a Set B, and MBE Drills. Does anyone know the distinction between a set and a drill?

[sublime]

No idea, MCFC.

Btw, did we ever figure out what Barbri meant when they gave the passage stats for people who completed 75%, especially the part about 75% of AMP?

[ellewoods123]

Quick kind of random question. For Full Faith and Credit, is a judgment that is being appealed a final judgment? I think the answer is that it's not, and that's what it also says in my lecture notes, but I can't actually find that anywhere else other than my lecture notes, so I wanted to confirm.

I actually thought the opposite..I had this rule in my missed rule statements document:

1. ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS DURING PENDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS – judgments are enforceable during pending post trial motions unless the court otherwise orders

am I confused?

[LionelHutzJD]

Quick kind of random question. For Full Faith and Credit, is a judgment that is being appealed a final judgment? I think the answer is that it's not, and that's what it also says in my lecture notes, but I can't actually find that anywhere else other than my lecture notes, so I wanted to confirm.

A judgment is only final once ALL appeals have been exhausted OR it is too late to appeal. Thus, a Court will not give FFC to judgment if it is currently being appealed because it is not a final judgment.

[ellewoods123]

Here's a minor question. In the additional Practice Questions for each subject there is a Set A, a Set B, and MBE Drills. Does anyone know the distinction between a set and a drill?

I'm not sure but FWIW I did A/B/Drills and didn't find one to be more difficult than the other or anything like that. Collectively I found all three to be easier than the MPQ sets

[mvp99]

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.

Yes but this is by operation of law.

[mvp99]

Quick kind of random question. For Full Faith and Credit, is a judgment that is being appealed a final judgment? I think the answer is that it's not, and that's what it also says in my lecture notes, but I can't actually find that anywhere else other than my lecture notes, so I wanted to confirm.

I actually thought the opposite..I had this rule in my missed rule statements document:

1. ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS DURING PENDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS – judgments are enforceable during pending post trial motions unless the court otherwise orders

am I confused?

Judgments are enforceable pending appeal.

[LionelHutzJD]

Quick kind of random question. For Full Faith and Credit, is a judgment that is being appealed a final judgment? I think the answer is that it's not, and that's what it also says in my lecture notes, but I can't actually find that anywhere else other than my lecture notes, so I wanted to confirm.

I actually thought the opposite..I had this rule in my missed rule statements document:

1. ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS DURING PENDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS – judgments are enforceable during pending post trial motions unless the court otherwise orders

am I confused?

Judgments are enforceable pending appeal.

Yes but no judge would grant Full Faith and Credit to a Judgment that is pending appeal.

[ellewoods123]

Quick kind of random question. For Full Faith and Credit, is a judgment that is being appealed a final judgment? I think the answer is that it's not, and that's what it also says in my lecture notes, but I can't actually find that anywhere else other than my lecture notes, so I wanted to confirm.

I actually thought the opposite..I had this rule in my missed rule statements document:

1. ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS DURING PENDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS – judgments are enforceable during pending post trial motions unless the court otherwise orders

am I confused?

Judgments are enforceable pending appeal.

Yes but no judge would grant Full Faith and Credit to a Judgment that is pending appeal.

are we sure about this?

[WheatThins]

Anyone know the goal or the averages for tomorrow's 100 Q MBE refresher?

56/100.

Really? Where'd you find this? Just finished it...56 seems awfully low.

[LionelHutzJD]

Quick kind of random question. For Full Faith and Credit, is a judgment that is being appealed a final judgment? I think the answer is that it's not, and that's what it also says in my lecture notes, but I can't actually find that anywhere else other than my lecture notes, so I wanted to confirm.

I actually thought the opposite..I had this rule in my missed rule statements document:

1. ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS DURING PENDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS – judgments are enforceable during pending post trial motions unless the court otherwise orders

am I confused?

Judgments are enforceable pending appeal.

Yes but no judge would grant Full Faith and Credit to a Judgment that is pending appeal.

are we sure about this?

Absolutely. Let's say you have a Judgment in State A and we know State courts almost always give a litigant a right to appeal. It would work an injustice if the winning litigant in State A were to take the judgment and enforce it in State B - completely eviscerating the losing litigants right to appeal.

[ellewoods123]

Anyone know the goal or the averages for tomorrow's 100 Q MBE refresher?

56/100.

Really? Where'd you find this? Just finished it...56 seems awfully low.

its in the front of the big MPQ book. I also finished it today and got 55/100. I thought it was really hard.

[liddy]

Quick kind of random question. For Full Faith and Credit, is a judgment that is being appealed a final judgment? I think the answer is that it's not, and that's what it also says in my lecture notes, but I can't actually find that anywhere else other than my lecture notes, so I wanted to confirm.

I actually thought the opposite..I had this rule in my missed rule statements document:

1. ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS DURING PENDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS – judgments are enforceable during pending post trial motions unless the court otherwise orders

am I confused?

Judgments are enforceable pending appeal.

Yes but no judge would grant Full Faith and Credit to a Judgment that is pending appeal.

are we sure about this?

Absolutely. Let's say you have a Judgment in State A and we know State courts almost always give a litigant a right to appeal. It would work an injustice if the winning litigant in State A were to take the judgment and enforce it in State B - completely eviscerating the losing litigants right to appeal.

ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS DURING PENDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS – judgments are enforceable during pending post trial motions unless the court otherwise orders --> I think this is applicable only for enforcement of judgments within the same court. Plus, for that question I think in most situations the court would order that the judgement should not be enforced until the appeal is finished. That rule shouldn't be mixed with applying Full Faith and Credit.

I'm pretty sure a judgment pending appeal is not a FINAL judgment.

[WahooLaw24]

Anyone know the goal or the averages for tomorrow's 100 Q MBE refresher?

56/100.

Really? Where'd you find this? Just finished it...56 seems awfully low.

its in the front of the big MPQ book. I also finished it today and got 55/100. I thought it was really hard.

I thought the MBE Refresher set was probably the hardest set in the book. Not impossible or even unfair by any means, but pretty challenging (as evidenced by the comparatively low average score, which is even lower than the "Midterm" they hyped so much).

[ellewoods123]

Quick kind of random question. For Full Faith and Credit, is a judgment that is being appealed a final judgment? I think the answer is that it's not, and that's what it also says in my lecture notes, but I can't actually find that anywhere else other than my lecture notes, so I wanted to confirm.

I actually thought the opposite..I had this rule in my missed rule statements document:

1. ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS DURING PENDING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS – judgments are enforceable during pending post trial motions unless the court otherwise orders

am I confused?

Judgments are enforceable pending appeal.

Yes but no judge would grant Full Faith and Credit to a Judgment that is pending appeal.

are we sure about this?

Absolutely. Let's say you have a Judgment in State A and we know State courts almost always give a litigant a right to appeal. It would work an injustice if the winning litigant in State A were to take the judgment and enforce it in State B - completely eviscerating the losing litigants right to appeal.

but isn't the determinative factor as to whether a judgment is final for purposes of FF and C whether the trial court has anything left to do on the case? You can obviously appeal a final judgment of trial court but during the pendency of appeal all judgments are enforceable in the meantime so it would seem to me that if there is a final judgment in State A, State B must enforce that judgment UNLESS AND UNTIL the appellate court actually reverses. Not at all trying to be argumentative just genuinely confused lol so if you have insight to clarify my confusion please share!