Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[Tanicius]

I also havent been using all of the allotted time. Wonder if slowing down would help. My gut instinct is that it wouldnt.

Havent taken the milestone yet because property was so demoralizing (PQ1), that I havent done any of the others.

I slow down when none of the answers make any sense, or when two answers both make perfect sense. I'll re-read the entire question, and I"m surprised to say that I often find the right answer when I review.

If any of you did moderately above average on Logic Reasoning or Reading Comprehension for the LSAT, then you already manage your time over-efficiently. Take a step back and use the time you have to review or clear your head when burnout sets in. It does help.

[BrendanD]

Hoping for some help on a property question.

In the question, an owner of a mansion devises that mansion to a charity "so long as the charity keeps it open to the public." I got this question correct but for the wrong reason. I thought that it violated RAP? Can someone explain how it doesn't?

Thanks!

Charities are not subject to the RAP.

Thanks!

Charity to charity conveyances aren't subject to RAP, but the owner isn't a charity. This doesn't violate because RAP doesn't apply to future interests held by the grantor.

[Tanicius]

Yeah, I see what everyone means about the Best Evidence rule. Duffy's strenuous claim that the Best Evidence rule will almost always be incorrect is not so far all that substantiated by Themis' own prep questions. In the past 15 questions I've done, probably half of them have been about the admissibility of photographs or documents based on the BE/Original Document doctrine, and at least 75% of them end up with exclusion for failure to meet the BE rule.

I'm just hoping these prep questions in particular are outdated or something, because otherwise it really speaks to the outdated nature of the modern MBE in general. The Best Evidence rule is practically never entertained in courtrooms today. Out of 200 questions for a competency test, it makes no sense to ask us 5-10 questions about material that isn't even an issue in real life anymore.

[Apple Tree]

If I get a CivPro essay (especially a CA civ pro one) I'm gonna fail the bar...

[champ33]

So I had no idea we could speak up the lectures to 1.5X or 2X speed until today. Shift + directional button right for anyone else who is as clueless as me.

[AIpwns]

If I get a CivPro essay (especially a CA civ pro one) I'm gonna fail the bar...

When I took the bar there was a Civ Pro question which I had absolutely no clue about and just wrote a basic policy answer and I still passed. Honestly, I would be surprised if anyone who is on this forum fails the bar just for the fact that they care enough to get on an online forum to discuss their taking the bar. Majority of passing the bar is just caring enough to study adequately and not freaking out while you're taking it.

[Rirruto]

Yeah, I see what everyone means about the Best Evidence rule. Duffy's strenuous claim that the Best Evidence rule will almost always be incorrect is not so far all that substantiated by Themis' own prep questions. In the past 15 questions I've done, probably half of them have been about the admissibility of photographs or documents based on the BE/Original Document doctrine, and at least 75% of them end up with exclusion for failure to meet the BE rule.

I'm just hoping these prep questions in particular are outdated or something, because otherwise it really speaks to the outdated nature of the modern MBE in general. The Best Evidence rule is practically never entertained in courtrooms today. Out of 200 questions for a competency test, it makes no sense to ask us 5-10 questions about material that isn't even an issue in real life anymore.

I'm glad other people see the dumbness in that. Plus, best evidence isn't really tested on the bar that much. Right now, Themis has given me more BE problems (17) than hearsay or hearsay exception problems (14). According to the NCBE, 10-11 questions are hearsay. Only 1-3 are best evidence (1-3 split over best evidence, summaries, and completeness. So probably 1 BE problem on the MBE). That doesn't make any sense.

This has been my only real gripe about Themis. I hope they aren't being so terrible about all the other subjects, evidence has just been where I've noticed. Not to mention how shitty all of their best evidence questions have been anyway.

[jigglypuffdreams]

Yeah, I see what everyone means about the Best Evidence rule. Duffy's strenuous claim that the Best Evidence rule will almost always be incorrect is not so far all that substantiated by Themis' own prep questions. In the past 15 questions I've done, probably half of them have been about the admissibility of photographs or documents based on the BE/Original Document doctrine, and at least 75% of them end up with exclusion for failure to meet the BE rule.

I'm just hoping these prep questions in particular are outdated or something, because otherwise it really speaks to the outdated nature of the modern MBE in general. The Best Evidence rule is practically never entertained in courtrooms today. Out of 200 questions for a competency test, it makes no sense to ask us 5-10 questions about material that isn't even an issue in real life anymore.

I'm glad other people see the dumbness in that. Plus, best evidence isn't really tested on the bar that much. Right now, Themis has given me more BE problems (17) than hearsay or hearsay exception problems (14). According to the NCBE, 10-11 questions are hearsay. Only 1-3 are best evidence (1-3 split over best evidence, summaries, and completeness. So probably 1 BE problem on the MBE). That doesn't make any sense.

This has been my only real gripe about Themis. I hope they aren't being so terrible about all the other subjects, evidence has just been where I've noticed. Not to mention how shitty all of their best evidence questions have been anyway.

I feel like they adjust problem sets and give you the most questions on things you're getting wrong, but maybe I'm just imagining it.

[j1987]

I'm so bad at property. I'm concerned.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

If I get a CivPro essay (especially a CA civ pro one) I'm gonna fail the bar...

You are not alone, Apple Tree I feel that way too! Oh well, guess we still have several weeks for a miracle to set in! There's just too much stuff to re-learn. Almost ready to gamble and toss a subject or two!

[bedefan]

I'm so bad at property. I'm concerned.

Well we each get 1/6 MBE areas we can do not so well on, right? Uhh, right? (Banking on this for torts. Or maybe crim. Uh oh.)

But anyway, if you're getting crossed up by the mortgage questions in the Real Property MBE PQ's, my guess is you'll probably start doing a lot better once you're comfortable with commercial paper and secured transactions. There's a certain shared logic across those three, and after a while things will start making more sense.

[Gotti]

I'm so bad at property. I'm concerned.

This.

[Burgstaller04]

In all the evidence outlines and lectures (Federal, TX specific, and the workshop) they keep saying that "best evidence" is almost always wrong and we should basically never pick it. I just took a set of 34 practice questions and I correctly picked the "best evidence" answer at least 6 times....

[TooManyLoans]

Anybody care to explain how this doesn't violate RAP? Isn't it possible that his widow lives more than 21 years after the measuring life (the grandson's life)?

Sixty years ago by a properly executed and recorded deed, a grandpa conveyed Greenacre, a tract of land: to his grandson "for life, then to" his grandson's "widow for her life, then to" his grandson's "child or children in equal shares." At that time, the grandson was six years old. Shortly thereafter, the grandpa died testate. The grandson was his only heir at law. The grandpa's will left his entire estate to a church. Twenty-five years ago, when he was 41, the grandson married his first wife who was then 20 years old; they had one child. The grandson's first wife and child were killed in an automobile accident three years ago when the child was 21. The child died testate, leaving his entire estate to a charity. His father, the grandson, was the child's sole heir at law. Two years ago, the grandson married his second wife. They had no children. This year, the grandson died testate, survived by his widow, his second wife, to whom he left his entire estate. The common-law Rule Against Perpetuities is unchanged by statute in the jurisdiction.

In an appropriate action to determine the ownership of Greenacre, the court should find that title is vested in

A. the church, because the second wife (the widow) of the grandson was unborn at the time of conveyance and, hence, the remainder violated the Rule Against Perpetuities.

B. the second wife, because her life estate and her inheritance from the grandson (who was the sole heir at law of both his grandpa and his son, the child) merged the entire title in her.

C. the charity, because the child had a vested remainder interest (as the only child of the grandson) that it inherited, the life estate to the grandson's widow being of no force and effect.

D. the second wife for life under the terms of the grandpa's deed, with the remainder to the charity as the successor in interest to the child.

Answer choice D is correct. The Rule Against Perpetuities requires that a future interest vest or not vest within the timeframe of a life in being, plus 21 years. The transfer of Greenacre to the grandson (the measuring life) does not violate the Rule because the interest vests in the grandson's second wife upon the grandson's death, and in the grandson's child (or his estate) upon her death.

[puttycake]

Anybody care to explain how this doesn't violate RAP? Isn't it possible that his widow lives more than 21 years after the measuring life (the grandson's life)?

The widow could live more than 21 years, but the remainder would be vested because at the time of the grandson's death, you would know whether he had heirs or whether the heirs had successors in interest. Whether he had children is not dependent on the life of the widow. The widow has only a life estate, so her life length does not change whether the person who gets the remainder is vested.

Let's see if this makes sense for you:

Say the exact same setup, but instead of it going "grandson for life, widow for life, grandson's child" it went "grandson for life, widow for life, grandson's grandchild."

The grandson could die without it ever being established whether he was going to have a grandchild. The grandson cannot die without it ever being established that he himself has a child. (We'll ignore things that science hath wrought for this purposes of this discussion.)

So the former is knowable at the death of the grandson (that he has a child). That person is ascertainable, therefore the remainder is vested. Nothing else has to happen to figure out if the grandson's child can take the property when it is available (death of widow).

The latter is not knowable necessarily at the death of the grandson (that he has a grandchild).

Always remember the RAP is concerned not just with what is knowable but what MUST be known under all circumstances. If you can think of a scenario in which the information wouldn't be known by the time the measuring life dies, look to how long it will take to make sure. If that period COULD be more than 21 years, it's a RAP problem.

Let me know if this is remotely helpful. I'll try to explain bits and pieces better if something is still confusing.

[TooManyLoans]

Anybody care to explain how this doesn't violate RAP? Isn't it possible that his widow lives more than 21 years after the measuring life (the grandson's life)?

The widow could live more than 21 years, but the remainder would be vested because at the time of the grandson's death, you would know whether he had heirs or whether the heirs had successors in interest. Whether he had children is not dependent on the life of the widow. The widow has only a life estate, so her life length does not change whether the person who gets the remainder is vested.

Let's see if this makes sense for you:

Say the exact same setup, but instead of it going "grandson for life, widow for life, grandson's child" it went "grandson for life, widow for life, grandson's grandchild."

The grandson could die without it ever being established whether he was going to have a grandchild. The grandson cannot die without it ever being established that he himself has a child. (We'll ignore things that science hath wrought for this purposes of this discussion.)

So the former is knowable at the death of the grandson (that he has a child). That person is ascertainable, therefore the remainder is vested. Nothing else has to happen to figure out if the grandson's child can take the property when it is available (death of widow).

The latter is not knowable necessarily at the death of the grandson (that he has a grandchild).

Always remember the RAP is concerned not just with what is knowable but what MUST be known under all circumstances. If you can think of a scenario in which the information wouldn't be known by the time the measuring life dies, look to how long it will take to make sure. If that period COULD be more than 21 years, it's a RAP problem.

Let me know if this is remotely helpful. I'll try to explain bits and pieces better if something is still confusing.

Thank you so much for that explanation. Maybe just too much work for me today, because it makes perfect sense and I feel stupid now for asking. (Especially after taking Decedents' Estates this spring). Appreciate it.

[puttycake]

Thank you so much for that explanation. Maybe just too much work for me today, because it makes perfect sense and I feel stupid now for asking. (Especially after taking Decedents' Estates this spring). Appreciate it.

Please don't feel stupid for asking. I don't know why RAP tends to makes sense for me where recording acts are like a gibbering madhouse in my head. It's nice for all of us to have a place we can ask the questions and hopefully get an explanation phrased in such a way that it makes sense!

[kapital98]

So I had no idea we could speak up the lectures to 1.5X or 2X speed until today. Shift + directional button right for anyone else who is as clueless as me.

I feel so bad for you! Watching the video on anything less than 1.5x is just a waste of time. 2x is optimal if you can handle the speed. If find that I like 1.5x for new/tough material (ex: Property) and 2x for material I know pretty well (ex: Torts).

Once you start watching the videos at 1.5-2x it will actually be really weird to go back to 1x. Very trippy.

[FlanAl]

anyone else having a seriously tough time bar prepping with the world cup on? yeah 1.5 seems totally normal to me now and 1 seems really slow.

[Shane]

How much can you learn in 40 days?

[blue920]

These civ pro lectures are making me regret my decision to go to law school.

[Prime]

Trying to fill in this evidence outline is an adventure. Sheesh.

[Gotti]

These civ pro lectures are making me regret my decision to go to law school.

omg i started those today and went through 2, and just... NOPE. time to watch tv.

[sparty99]

I'm at 13% course completed. The course videos are a time sink. Why can't they just give you the outline. And the Torts guy from Michigan, Sherman, was HORRIBLE.

[kapital98]

I'm at 13% course completed. The course videos are a time sink. Why can't they just give you the outline. And the Torts guy from Michigan, Sherman, was HORRIBLE.

You are way behind. I'm at 24% and feel like I'm way behind. You may want to completely skip reading the full outlines.

They will give you short summary outlines for each subject. For me, they are giving out outlines at a scheduled pace. Not all at once.