July 2016 California Bar Exam Forum

[Ibis305]

Damn..
i said facts would support valid prenup since
no evid of undue influence,
took their time to discuss in advance
no evid of non disclosure,


I never mentioned 7 days ...was there any fact suggesting 7 days not met? I can't remember but was prenup and waiver signed at same time?

I didn't mention the 7 days either because it didn't say anything about the waiting period. I said there is an argument that waiver of counsel is vague, but given date and signature and lack of dispute between parties regarding its validity, I thought it was valid. I think it could be argued either way based on how you came out on validity

Lol listen, from someone who has passed two of these things...the facts were vague on purpose. When that happens there isn't a specific conclusion they want you to reach, they just want to see that you understand the options and form an opinion. Half the room came out differently on validity, and the graders expect that. Chill, if you came to a conclusion, great, if you had time to argue both ways, great, but either way you're ok.

[teabreeze]

Damn..
i said facts would support valid prenup since
no evid of undue influence,
took their time to discuss in advance
no evid of non disclosure,


I never mentioned 7 days ...was there any fact suggesting 7 days not met? I can't remember but was prenup and waiver signed at same time?

I didn't mention the 7 days either because it didn't say anything about the waiting period. I said there is an argument that waiver of counsel is vague, but given date and signature and lack of dispute between parties regarding its validity, I thought it was valid. I think it could be argued either way based on how you came out on validity

The graders better give points whichever direction was taken. The analysis for the first three questions depended entirely on whether the prenup was valid or invalid. It would be totally unfair for them to not award points on later analysis just because you thought there was a valid prenup when there really wasn't or the other way around.

I went with the route that the agreement was invalid but then put in a few paragraphs saying - but if the court finds the agreement to be valid, then bla bla bla.

[teabreeze]

I need to stay away from this forum. Not good for my mental sanity. I felt a sliver of hope of passing after the last PT but the more I read here, the more unsure I get. Urgh.

[UncleStew]

There was no possible way that I could have discussed SDP and EP along with PDP... unless I cut out the outlining process.

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. Thought the PTs were both ridiculous (although B was better than A). There was definitely no need to discuss SPD or EP in #4 considering it asked only for PDP. I was completely unsure of how to work in the free speech issue into #4, but it has since dawned on me. Organization for #4:

Part 1:
Standing (Paige has it)
State actor (School that terminated her)
Due Process Definition
Identify life, liberty, or property interest (Said Paige had none because she wasn't tenured, but in retrospect, should have said she had a liberty interest in free speech)
What process is due (said none because no deprivation, but should have done speech for govt employees)

Part 2:
Standing (Paige and Bob have)
11th Amendment (all I remembered is that you can't sue states for monetary damages)
Conclusion ( (1) deny motion re: standing, (2) dismiss claim for damages but retain claim for injunctive relief)

agree re: part 1, but i think the standing issue for bob came out differently. his injury wasn't really actual or imminent because he could've taken the certification course or been terminated and received the refund with interest. that would result in no harm. on the other hand, if he didn't take the course, and also was not terminated, he would be injured because the money deducted from his salary would not be refunded. it was too speculative at that point and i argued the court would need to wait and see if bob actually lost money before the court could hear the case.

Aaaaand this is why these essays are crazy. It's impossible to hit everything.

Now that I think about it, Paige may not have standing because her money was returned with interest when she was terminated (I think that was in the fact pattern?). Bob has standing because his money has been withheld. The fact that he could take steps to get it back doesn't eliminate the fact that he's suffered an injury (loss of money, even if potentially only temporary) that is caused by the legislation and could be redressed through injunctive relief.

Paige had standing to bring the due process claim, but yeah I don't think she had standing for the salary cut because it was refunded. I still think Bob's injury was too speculative because he could've taken the course and gotten a full refund and there wouldn't be any injury, aside from having to take a course which wouldn't be an injury under the standing analysis. it reminded me of that supreme court case where the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had no plans of ever traveling to the sri lanka to see the endangered elephants or whatever. anyway, i think the outcome wasn't as important as the analysis in this question. it was an interesting question.

I think the case you're referring to was a organizational standing case. Here he probably has standing simply bc he's being harmed under the statute. having to complete a program would be further harm not a remedy.

Re q5 I'm still curious if anyone thought the vague language in the prenup could be read as meaningless since it didn't say his and her <<separate>> property?

[FlowBro]

There was no possible way that I could have discussed SDP and EP along with PDP... unless I cut out the outlining process.

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. Thought the PTs were both ridiculous (although B was better than A). There was definitely no need to discuss SPD or EP in #4 considering it asked only for PDP. I was completely unsure of how to work in the free speech issue into #4, but it has since dawned on me. Organization for #4:

Part 1:
Standing (Paige has it)
State actor (School that terminated her)
Due Process Definition
Identify life, liberty, or property interest (Said Paige had none because she wasn't tenured, but in retrospect, should have said she had a liberty interest in free speech)
What process is due (said none because no deprivation, but should have done speech for govt employees)

Part 2:
Standing (Paige and Bob have)
11th Amendment (all I remembered is that you can't sue states for monetary damages)
Conclusion ( (1) deny motion re: standing, (2) dismiss claim for damages but retain claim for injunctive relief)

agree re: part 1, but i think the standing issue for bob came out differently. his injury wasn't really actual or imminent because he could've taken the certification course or been terminated and received the refund with interest. that would result in no harm. on the other hand, if he didn't take the course, and also was not terminated, he would be injured because the money deducted from his salary would not be refunded. it was too speculative at that point and i argued the court would need to wait and see if bob actually lost money before the court could hear the case.

Aaaaand this is why these essays are crazy. It's impossible to hit everything.

Now that I think about it, Paige may not have standing because her money was returned with interest when she was terminated (I think that was in the fact pattern?). Bob has standing because his money has been withheld. The fact that he could take steps to get it back doesn't eliminate the fact that he's suffered an injury (loss of money, even if potentially only temporary) that is caused by the legislation and could be redressed through injunctive relief.

Paige had standing to bring the due process claim, but yeah I don't think she had standing for the salary cut because it was refunded. I still think Bob's injury was too speculative because he could've taken the course and gotten a full refund and there wouldn't be any injury, aside from having to take a course which wouldn't be an injury under the standing analysis. it reminded me of that supreme court case where the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had no plans of ever traveling to the sri lanka to see the endangered elephants or whatever. anyway, i think the outcome wasn't as important as the analysis in this question. it was an interesting question.

I think the case you're referring to was a organizational standing case. Here he probably has standing simply bc he's being harmed under the statute. having to complete a program would be further harm not a remedy.

Re q5 I'm still curious if anyone thought the vague language in the prenup could be read as meaningless since it didn't say his and her <<separate>> property?

Did anyone else argue the prenup both ways and then address each piece of property with separate headings like "If the Agreement is Valid" & "If the Agreement is Invalid?"

[UncleStew]

There was no possible way that I could have discussed SDP and EP along with PDP... unless I cut out the outlining process.

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. Thought the PTs were both ridiculous (although B was better than A). There was definitely no need to discuss SPD or EP in #4 considering it asked only for PDP. I was completely unsure of how to work in the free speech issue into #4, but it has since dawned on me. Organization for #4:

Part 1:
Standing (Paige has it)
State actor (School that terminated her)
Due Process Definition
Identify life, liberty, or property interest (Said Paige had none because she wasn't tenured, but in retrospect, should have said she had a liberty interest in free speech)
What process is due (said none because no deprivation, but should have done speech for govt employees)

Part 2:
Standing (Paige and Bob have)
11th Amendment (all I remembered is that you can't sue states for monetary damages)
Conclusion ( (1) deny motion re: standing, (2) dismiss claim for damages but retain claim for injunctive relief)

agree re: part 1, but i think the standing issue for bob came out differently. his injury wasn't really actual or imminent because he could've taken the certification course or been terminated and received the refund with interest. that would result in no harm. on the other hand, if he didn't take the course, and also was not terminated, he would be injured because the money deducted from his salary would not be refunded. it was too speculative at that point and i argued the court would need to wait and see if bob actually lost money before the court could hear the case.

Aaaaand this is why these essays are crazy. It's impossible to hit everything.

Now that I think about it, Paige may not have standing because her money was returned with interest when she was terminated (I think that was in the fact pattern?). Bob has standing because his money has been withheld. The fact that he could take steps to get it back doesn't eliminate the fact that he's suffered an injury (loss of money, even if potentially only temporary) that is caused by the legislation and could be redressed through injunctive relief.

Paige had standing to bring the due process claim, but yeah I don't think she had standing for the salary cut because it was refunded. I still think Bob's injury was too speculative because he could've taken the course and gotten a full refund and there wouldn't be any injury, aside from having to take a course which wouldn't be an injury under the standing analysis. it reminded me of that supreme court case where the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had no plans of ever traveling to the sri lanka to see the endangered elephants or whatever. anyway, i think the outcome wasn't as important as the analysis in this question. it was an interesting question.

I think the case you're referring to was a organizational standing case. Here he probably has standing simply bc he's being harmed under the statute. having to complete a program would be further harm not a remedy.

Re q5 I'm still curious if anyone thought the vague language in the prenup could be read as meaningless since it didn't say his and her <<separate>> property?

Did anyone else argue the prenup both ways and then address each piece of property with separate headings like "If the Agreement is Valid" & "If the Agreement is Invalid?"

Yea. I also felt within valid pre nup there were arguments to be made about how broad "salary" could be interpreted.

[FlowBro]

Solid. I think if you made arguments (which there were plenty) things are fine no matter what conclusion you reached. I just don't see how our answers could be less than passing. If we aren't writing 65's, who the hell is?

[UncleStew]

Solid. I think if you made arguments (which there were plenty) things are fine no matter what conclusion you reached. I just don't see how our answers could be less than passing. If we aren't writing 65's, who the hell is?

Yea I don't know. I looked at a lot of old graded answers and it seems arbitrary to me. Hope for a friendly grader.

[2TimesTheCharm]

There was no possible way that I could have discussed SDP and EP along with PDP... unless I cut out the outlining process.

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. Thought the PTs were both ridiculous (although B was better than A). There was definitely no need to discuss SPD or EP in #4 considering it asked only for PDP. I was completely unsure of how to work in the free speech issue into #4, but it has since dawned on me. Organization for #4:

Part 1:
Standing (Paige has it)
State actor (School that terminated her)
Due Process Definition
Identify life, liberty, or property interest (Said Paige had none because she wasn't tenured, but in retrospect, should have said she had a liberty interest in free speech)
What process is due (said none because no deprivation, but should have done speech for govt employees)

Part 2:
Standing (Paige and Bob have)
11th Amendment (all I remembered is that you can't sue states for monetary damages)
Conclusion ( (1) deny motion re: standing, (2) dismiss claim for damages but retain claim for injunctive relief)

agree re: part 1, but i think the standing issue for bob came out differently. his injury wasn't really actual or imminent because he could've taken the certification course or been terminated and received the refund with interest. that would result in no harm. on the other hand, if he didn't take the course, and also was not terminated, he would be injured because the money deducted from his salary would not be refunded. it was too speculative at that point and i argued the court would need to wait and see if bob actually lost money before the court could hear the case.

Aaaaand this is why these essays are crazy. It's impossible to hit everything.

Now that I think about it, Paige may not have standing because her money was returned with interest when she was terminated (I think that was in the fact pattern?). Bob has standing because his money has been withheld. The fact that he could take steps to get it back doesn't eliminate the fact that he's suffered an injury (loss of money, even if potentially only temporary) that is caused by the legislation and could be redressed through injunctive relief.

Paige had standing to bring the due process claim, but yeah I don't think she had standing for the salary cut because it was refunded. I still think Bob's injury was too speculative because he could've taken the course and gotten a full refund and there wouldn't be any injury, aside from having to take a course which wouldn't be an injury under the standing analysis. it reminded me of that supreme court case where the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had no plans of ever traveling to the sri lanka to see the endangered elephants or whatever. anyway, i think the outcome wasn't as important as the analysis in this question. it was an interesting question.

I think the case you're referring to was a organizational standing case. Here he probably has standing simply bc he's being harmed under the statute. having to complete a program would be further harm not a remedy.

Re q5 I'm still curious if anyone thought the vague language in the prenup could be read as meaningless since it didn't say his and her <<separate>> property?

Did anyone else argue the prenup both ways and then address each piece of property with separate headings like "If the Agreement is Valid" & "If the Agreement is Invalid?"

Lol, that would have been one heck of an essay. If that's what you did, I think you got a 65+ just for covering both sides.

[EZ as AsDf]

I did, but then I ran out of time to fully discuss what happens upon dissolution. Kinda shot myself in the foot.

There was no possible way that I could have discussed SDP and EP along with PDP... unless I cut out the outlining process.

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. Thought the PTs were both ridiculous (although B was better than A). There was definitely no need to discuss SPD or EP in #4 considering it asked only for PDP. I was completely unsure of how to work in the free speech issue into #4, but it has since dawned on me. Organization for #4:

Part 1:
Standing (Paige has it)
State actor (School that terminated her)
Due Process Definition
Identify life, liberty, or property interest (Said Paige had none because she wasn't tenured, but in retrospect, should have said she had a liberty interest in free speech)
What process is due (said none because no deprivation, but should have done speech for govt employees)

Part 2:
Standing (Paige and Bob have)
11th Amendment (all I remembered is that you can't sue states for monetary damages)
Conclusion ( (1) deny motion re: standing, (2) dismiss claim for damages but retain claim for injunctive relief)

agree re: part 1, but i think the standing issue for bob came out differently. his injury wasn't really actual or imminent because he could've taken the certification course or been terminated and received the refund with interest. that would result in no harm. on the other hand, if he didn't take the course, and also was not terminated, he would be injured because the money deducted from his salary would not be refunded. it was too speculative at that point and i argued the court would need to wait and see if bob actually lost money before the court could hear the case.

Aaaaand this is why these essays are crazy. It's impossible to hit everything.

Now that I think about it, Paige may not have standing because her money was returned with interest when she was terminated (I think that was in the fact pattern?). Bob has standing because his money has been withheld. The fact that he could take steps to get it back doesn't eliminate the fact that he's suffered an injury (loss of money, even if potentially only temporary) that is caused by the legislation and could be redressed through injunctive relief.

Paige had standing to bring the due process claim, but yeah I don't think she had standing for the salary cut because it was refunded. I still think Bob's injury was too speculative because he could've taken the course and gotten a full refund and there wouldn't be any injury, aside from having to take a course which wouldn't be an injury under the standing analysis. it reminded me of that supreme court case where the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had no plans of ever traveling to the sri lanka to see the endangered elephants or whatever. anyway, i think the outcome wasn't as important as the analysis in this question. it was an interesting question.

I think the case you're referring to was a organizational standing case. Here he probably has standing simply bc he's being harmed under the statute. having to complete a program would be further harm not a remedy.

Re q5 I'm still curious if anyone thought the vague language in the prenup could be read as meaningless since it didn't say his and her <<separate>> property?

Did anyone else argue the prenup both ways and then address each piece of property with separate headings like "If the Agreement is Valid" & "If the Agreement is Invalid?"

[armenianBEAUTY]

There was no possible way that I could have discussed SDP and EP along with PDP... unless I cut out the outlining process.

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. Thought the PTs were both ridiculous (although B was better than A). There was definitely no need to discuss SPD or EP in #4 considering it asked only for PDP. I was completely unsure of how to work in the free speech issue into #4, but it has since dawned on me. Organization for #4:

Part 1:
Standing (Paige has it)
State actor (School that terminated her)
Due Process Definition
Identify life, liberty, or property interest (Said Paige had none because she wasn't tenured, but in retrospect, should have said she had a liberty interest in free speech)
What process is due (said none because no deprivation, but should have done speech for govt employees)

Part 2:
Standing (Paige and Bob have)
11th Amendment (all I remembered is that you can't sue states for monetary damages)
Conclusion ( (1) deny motion re: standing, (2) dismiss claim for damages but retain claim for injunctive relief)

agree re: part 1, but i think the standing issue for bob came out differently. his injury wasn't really actual or imminent because he could've taken the certification course or been terminated and received the refund with interest. that would result in no harm. on the other hand, if he didn't take the course, and also was not terminated, he would be injured because the money deducted from his salary would not be refunded. it was too speculative at that point and i argued the court would need to wait and see if bob actually lost money before the court could hear the case.

Aaaaand this is why these essays are crazy. It's impossible to hit everything.

Now that I think about it, Paige may not have standing because her money was returned with interest when she was terminated (I think that was in the fact pattern?). Bob has standing because his money has been withheld. The fact that he could take steps to get it back doesn't eliminate the fact that he's suffered an injury (loss of money, even if potentially only temporary) that is caused by the legislation and could be redressed through injunctive relief.

Paige had standing to bring the due process claim, but yeah I don't think she had standing for the salary cut because it was refunded. I still think Bob's injury was too speculative because he could've taken the course and gotten a full refund and there wouldn't be any injury, aside from having to take a course which wouldn't be an injury under the standing analysis. it reminded me of that supreme court case where the plaintiffs lacked standing because they had no plans of ever traveling to the sri lanka to see the endangered elephants or whatever. anyway, i think the outcome wasn't as important as the analysis in this question. it was an interesting question.

I think the case you're referring to was a organizational standing case. Here he probably has standing simply bc he's being harmed under the statute. having to complete a program would be further harm not a remedy.

Re q5 I'm still curious if anyone thought the vague language in the prenup could be read as meaningless since it didn't say his and her <<separate>> property?

Did anyone else argue the prenup both ways and then address each piece of property with separate headings like "If the Agreement is Valid" & "If the Agreement is Invalid?"

I first wrote about the prenup... concluded that likely the presumption that it was entered into involuntarily would not be rebutted (response to Bonds). To rebut, would have had to shown 1) rep by indep counsel or waived in sep. writing, 2) 7 days, 3) if waived indep counsel, effect in the terms must have been explained to the complaining spouse and s/he must have signed a separate writing confirming that that was done. Bc no facts claiming anything even close to that happened, involuntary nature of prenup was not rebutted.

Most of my analysis was done founded on that conclusion (so CP characterization), but at the end of each item, I wrote about 1 sentence saying "If the prenup was valid... H/W could trace... etc." I think for the joint account, I wrote about 3 sentences b/c I quickly highlighted the exhaustion and "quick in quick out" methods.

God I hope this was my first and last time enduring this abuse. Almost 4 months of waiting.

[zipman1232]

As to the CP question, what did everyone put as to whether the rental property was CP or SP? I had a discussion re: tracing back through the commingled funds and the fiduciary duty of the wife.

I think I mentioned that we did not know enough info to make a solid determination on the rental property because we were not provided the sales price and whether the wife had enough SP in the bank account to purchase the property on her own. Believe I discussed that the husband may be entitled to reimbursement if it is found that wife used CP to purchase the rental property.

That was really the only difficult issue for me on that question. I found the pre nup to be valid, but discussed the possible defenses.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

I don't wanna talk about the test specifically on here (I'll honor the process until results come out) but, generally, did anyone else do Barbri here? If you did, did you think the whole exam was noticeably easier than Barbri's scheduled work? The MBE seemed easer, although also a bit different. There were a lot more softball questions on the real thing and each question had at least one, maybe two, answer you knew were made up and not right, while Barbri rarely had this. The essays seemed shorter than Barbri's and contained slightly less issues on average and weren't really as tricky as the issues Barbri's essays covered (or how Barbri's essays expected us to cover them). The PTs were similar, but still, the real ones had a file and library much easier to read and less dense that they seemed shorter than the ones in Barbri's PTs. Based on my scored performance on Barbri graded essays, PT, and MBE, I walked out confident I passed, but then keep thinking what if there were things I obliviously missed out.

[SFSpartan]

As to the CP question, what did everyone put as to whether the rental property was CP or SP? I had a discussion re: tracing back through the commingled funds and the fiduciary duty of the wife.

I think I mentioned that we did not know enough info to make a solid determination on the rental property because we were not provided the sales price and whether the wife had enough SP in the bank account to purchase the property on her own. Believe I discussed that the husband may be entitled to reimbursement if it is found that wife used CP to purchase the rental property.

That was really the only difficult issue for me on that question. I found the pre nup to be valid, but discussed the possible defenses.

I did the same thing you did. I don't think there was any other way to answer that question if you found the pre nup was valid.

[bnghle234]

I don't wanna talk about the test specifically on here (I'll honor the process until results come out) but, generally, did anyone else do Barbri here? If you did, did you think the whole exam was noticeably easier than Barbri's scheduled work? The MBE seemed easer, although also a bit different. There were a lot more softball questions on the real thing and each question had at least one, maybe two, answer you knew were made up and not right, while Barbri rarely had this. The essays seemed shorter than Barbri's and contained slightly less issues on average and weren't really as tricky as the issues Barbri's essays covered (or how Barbri's essays expected us to cover them). The PTs were similar, but still, the real ones had a file and library much easier to read and less dense that they seemed shorter than the ones in Barbri's PTs. Based on my scored performance on Barbri graded essays, PT, and MBE, I walked out confident I passed, but then keep thinking what if there were things I obliviously missed out.

You know that Barbri's essays and PTs are actual past exam answers, right? Barbri does not write them. I thought the PTs and the essays were in line with what Barbri provided us because they were in fact taken from past bar exams.

[2TimesTheCharm]

As to the CP question, what did everyone put as to whether the rental property was CP or SP? I had a discussion re: tracing back through the commingled funds and the fiduciary duty of the wife.

I think I mentioned that we did not know enough info to make a solid determination on the rental property because we were not provided the sales price and whether the wife had enough SP in the bank account to purchase the property on her own. Believe I discussed that the husband may be entitled to reimbursement if it is found that wife used CP to purchase the rental property.

That was really the only difficult issue for me on that question. I found the pre nup to be valid, but discussed the possible defenses.

I did the same thing you did. I don't think there was any other way to answer that question if you found the pre nup was valid.

I think so too. I think generally, if you found the prenup valid, the only difference that would have made was with respect to first part. The other conclusions would have been the same as if you found the prenup void.

[a male human]

I don't wanna talk about the test specifically on here (I'll honor the process until results come out) but, generally, did anyone else do Barbri here? If you did, did you think the whole exam was noticeably easier than Barbri's scheduled work? The MBE seemed easer, although also a bit different. There were a lot more softball questions on the real thing and each question had at least one, maybe two, answer you knew were made up and not right, while Barbri rarely had this. The essays seemed shorter than Barbri's and contained slightly less issues on average and weren't really as tricky as the issues Barbri's essays covered (or how Barbri's essays expected us to cover them). The PTs were similar, but still, the real ones had a file and library much easier to read and less dense that they seemed shorter than the ones in Barbri's PTs. Based on my scored performance on Barbri graded essays, PT, and MBE, I walked out confident I passed, but then keep thinking what if there were things I obliviously missed out.

You know that Barbri's essays and PTs are actual past exam answers, right? Barbri does not write them. I thought the PTs and the essays were in line with what Barbri provided us because they were in fact taken from past bar exams.

I'm fairly sure Barbri answers are written by Barbri... Am I mistaken? I just looked at my essay/PT workbook (2013 edition, not sure if it has changed much since), and they don't appear to be real answers. Maybe a mix?

[bnghle234]

I don't wanna talk about the test specifically on here (I'll honor the process until results come out) but, generally, did anyone else do Barbri here? If you did, did you think the whole exam was noticeably easier than Barbri's scheduled work? The MBE seemed easer, although also a bit different. There were a lot more softball questions on the real thing and each question had at least one, maybe two, answer you knew were made up and not right, while Barbri rarely had this. The essays seemed shorter than Barbri's and contained slightly less issues on average and weren't really as tricky as the issues Barbri's essays covered (or how Barbri's essays expected us to cover them). The PTs were similar, but still, the real ones had a file and library much easier to read and less dense that they seemed shorter than the ones in Barbri's PTs. Based on my scored performance on Barbri graded essays, PT, and MBE, I walked out confident I passed, but then keep thinking what if there were things I obliviously missed out.

You know that Barbri's essays and PTs are actual past exam answers, right? Barbri does not write them. I thought the PTs and the essays were in line with what Barbri provided us because they were in fact taken from past bar exams.

I'm fairly sure Barbri answers are written by Barbri... Am I mistaken? I just looked at my essay/PT workbook (2013 edition, not sure if it has changed much since), and they don't appear to be real answers. Maybe a mix?

which state?

[2TimesTheCharm]

I don't wanna talk about the test specifically on here (I'll honor the process until results come out) but, generally, did anyone else do Barbri here? If you did, did you think the whole exam was noticeably easier than Barbri's scheduled work? The MBE seemed easer, although also a bit different. There were a lot more softball questions on the real thing and each question had at least one, maybe two, answer you knew were made up and not right, while Barbri rarely had this. The essays seemed shorter than Barbri's and contained slightly less issues on average and weren't really as tricky as the issues Barbri's essays covered (or how Barbri's essays expected us to cover them). The PTs were similar, but still, the real ones had a file and library much easier to read and less dense that they seemed shorter than the ones in Barbri's PTs. Based on my scored performance on Barbri graded essays, PT, and MBE, I walked out confident I passed, but then keep thinking what if there were things I obliviously missed out.

You know that Barbri's essays and PTs are actual past exam answers, right? Barbri does not write them. I thought the PTs and the essays were in line with what Barbri provided us because they were in fact taken from past bar exams.

I'm fairly sure Barbri answers are written by Barbri... Am I mistaken? I just looked at my essay/PT workbook (2013 edition, not sure if it has changed much since), and they don't appear to be real answers. Maybe a mix?

I think you're right. I'm also not sure about the quality of Barbri's essay graders. One wrote on my essay that the PER was not an issue in a ambiguous contract dispute.

[bnghle234]

I don't wanna talk about the test specifically on here (I'll honor the process until results come out) but, generally, did anyone else do Barbri here? If you did, did you think the whole exam was noticeably easier than Barbri's scheduled work? The MBE seemed easer, although also a bit different. There were a lot more softball questions on the real thing and each question had at least one, maybe two, answer you knew were made up and not right, while Barbri rarely had this. The essays seemed shorter than Barbri's and contained slightly less issues on average and weren't really as tricky as the issues Barbri's essays covered (or how Barbri's essays expected us to cover them). The PTs were similar, but still, the real ones had a file and library much easier to read and less dense that they seemed shorter than the ones in Barbri's PTs. Based on my scored performance on Barbri graded essays, PT, and MBE, I walked out confident I passed, but then keep thinking what if there were things I obliviously missed out.

You know that Barbri's essays and PTs are actual past exam answers, right? Barbri does not write them. I thought the PTs and the essays were in line with what Barbri provided us because they were in fact taken from past bar exams.

I'm fairly sure Barbri answers are written by Barbri... Am I mistaken? I just looked at my essay/PT workbook (2013 edition, not sure if it has changed much since), and they don't appear to be real answers. Maybe a mix?

I think you're right. I'm also not sure about the quality of Barbri's essay graders. One wrote on my essay that the PER was not an issue in a ambiguous contract dispute.

OP was talking about the essays and PTs themselves being a lot easier and/or shorter than Barbri's, but Barbri just takes past bar essays and PTs. The answers themselves are sort of written by Barbri. I would look up the model answers on the CA bar website sometimes and they were nearly identical, so I think Barbri just lifts those.

[cal_pushed]

Contracts Clause on Con Law prompt.... anyone?

Also, PTA based on real case. Google "Wildomar Property Dedication." Went up to Cal Supreme Court in 2009. Same statutory interpretation issue given.

[chicoalto0649]

Contracts Clause on Con Law prompt.... anyone?

Also, PTA based on real case. Google "Wildomar Property Dedication." Went up to Cal Supreme Court in 2009. Same statutory interpretation issue given.

Lol

http://blog.aklandlaw.com/uploads/file/Ste%20Marie.pdf

[a male human]

I don't wanna talk about the test specifically on here (I'll honor the process until results come out) but, generally, did anyone else do Barbri here? If you did, did you think the whole exam was noticeably easier than Barbri's scheduled work? The MBE seemed easer, although also a bit different. There were a lot more softball questions on the real thing and each question had at least one, maybe two, answer you knew were made up and not right, while Barbri rarely had this. The essays seemed shorter than Barbri's and contained slightly less issues on average and weren't really as tricky as the issues Barbri's essays covered (or how Barbri's essays expected us to cover them). The PTs were similar, but still, the real ones had a file and library much easier to read and less dense that they seemed shorter than the ones in Barbri's PTs. Based on my scored performance on Barbri graded essays, PT, and MBE, I walked out confident I passed, but then keep thinking what if there were things I obliviously missed out.

You know that Barbri's essays and PTs are actual past exam answers, right? Barbri does not write them. I thought the PTs and the essays were in line with what Barbri provided us because they were in fact taken from past bar exams.

I'm fairly sure Barbri answers are written by Barbri... Am I mistaken? I just looked at my essay/PT workbook (2013 edition, not sure if it has changed much since), and they don't appear to be real answers. Maybe a mix?

which state?

California

[Calibarra]

Contracts Clause on Con Law prompt.... anyone?

Also, PTA based on real case. Google "Wildomar Property Dedication." Went up to Cal Supreme Court in 2009. Same statutory interpretation issue given.

Lol

http://blog.aklandlaw.com/uploads/file/Ste%20Marie.pdf

So awesome.

[djwjddl]

As to the CP question, what did everyone put as to whether the rental property was CP or SP? I had a discussion re: tracing back through the commingled funds and the fiduciary duty of the wife.

I think I mentioned that we did not know enough info to make a solid determination on the rental property because we were not provided the sales price and whether the wife had enough SP in the bank account to purchase the property on her own. Believe I discussed that the husband may be entitled to reimbursement if it is found that wife used CP to purchase the rental property.

That was really the only difficult issue for me on that question. I found the pre nup to be valid, but discussed the possible defenses.

No the bank account and rental property were clearly CP