Top Law Schools

Thoughts on the essays? Anyone write about a noncupative will?

Coming to the conclusion that it wasn't a robbery really annoyed me, personally.

And I didn't write about noncupative will...I thought it was testing ademption inter vivos.

How was it not a robbery? And I also evaluated it as an attempted ademption.

Overall I felt OK since I wrote something for everything, but there were definitely a couple I think I majorly screwed up. The tax question was one.

What about corporations? Corporate opportunity with the remedy as a constructive trust or piercing the corporate veil?

Also, I had no idea what the answer was for the remedy under the PA Divorce Code. Went with a prelim injunction

caveman2 wrote:How was it not a robbery?

No taking by force, as the guy going to the bank handed over the cash to Bonnie.

Acdc54 wrote:Also, I had no idea what the answer was for the remedy under the PA Divorce Code. Went with a prelim injunction

Yeah, this one was tough. I made up a rule about how she should file for divorce because she might be in prison for more than a year. That would trigger the distribution of marital properties which will allow her to get the money before her husband goes to Mexico.

I don't know, just wanted a rule that will let me use all the facts lol.

Gamecubesupreme wrote:

caveman2 wrote:How was it not a robbery?

No taking by force, as the guy going to the bank handed over the cash to Bonnie.

What are you talking about? Bonnie put a gun to the lady's head and demanded that she hand the money over. If that's not robbery I don't know what is.

Acdc54 wrote:What about corporations? Corporate opportunity with the remedy as a constructive trust or piercing the corporate veil?

When someone usurps a corporate opportunity the remedy is that all the proceeds that the director would get from the usurped opportunity instead go to the corporation. Basically putting the corporation in the position it would have been had it been able to take the opportunity for itself.

Acdc54 wrote:Also, I had no idea what the answer was for the remedy under the PA Divorce Code. Went with a prelim injunction

This was pretty much the answer. When a spouse takes steps like they're going to go squander the marital property before it is divided up you can get an injunction to stop them from doing that.

caveman2 wrote:

Gamecubesupreme wrote:

caveman2 wrote:How was it not a robbery?

No taking by force, as the guy going to the bank handed over the cash to Bonnie.

What are you talking about? Bonnie put a gun to the lady's head and demanded that she hand the money over. If that's not robbery I don't know what is.

The property needs to be removed by force, however slight. That's the last element. I remember this because a similar fact pattern came up on the MBE. If the cash was in the guy's hands and Bonnie snatched it, then it is by force. But the pattern purposefully said the money was handed over to Bonnie without any forceful taking.

Yeah, that was definitely a robbery.

caveman2 wrote:

Acdc54 wrote:Also, I had no idea what the answer was for the remedy under the PA Divorce Code. Went with a prelim injunction

This was pretty much the answer. When a spouse takes steps like they're going to go squander the marital property before it is divided up you can get an injunction to stop them from doing that.

It has a specific name, like "Special Action" or something. But it's essentially a motion for injunction.

Anyone write about filing a writ of praecipe or filing a complaint to add the additional defendant for the civ pro issue?

Gamecubesupreme wrote:

caveman2 wrote:

Gamecubesupreme wrote:

caveman2 wrote:How was it not a robbery?

No taking by force, as the guy going to the bank handed over the cash to Bonnie.

What are you talking about? Bonnie put a gun to the lady's head and demanded that she hand the money over. If that's not robbery I don't know what is.

The property needs to be removed by force, however slight. That's the last element. I remember this because a similar fact pattern came up on the MBE. If the cash was in the guy's hands and Bonnie snatched it, then it is by force. But the pattern purposefully said the money was handed over to Bonnie without any forceful taking.

The facts stated Bonnie put a gun to the lady's head and that the lady was terrified and so handed over the money. Explain how that's not taking it by force?

The rule is by force or THREAT of force, which I guess in this case it was a threat of force. But still, that's a robbery.

Acdc54 wrote:Anyone write about filing a writ of praecipe or filing a complaint to add the additional defendant for the civ pro issue?

Yeah, although I spelled praecipe wrong for sure.

Acdc54 wrote:Anyone write about filing a writ of praecipe or filing a complaint to add the additional defendant for the civ pro issue?

It was the defendant who wanted to add the party, not the plaintiff, so wouldn't neither of those apply? I ended up saying the defendant should include in their answer a motion for impleader or a motion to join a necessary party.

No one wants to talk about these anymore?

I think I messed up the conflicts issue. I talked about lex situs and that the law of state where the property is located should apply. I forgot to mention PA uses the hybrid approach.

And only had time to write about the implied warranty of merchantability and not an express warranty

Acdc54 wrote:I think I messed up the conflicts issue. I talked about lex situs and that the law of state where the property is located should apply. I forgot to mention PA uses the hybrid approach.

I didn't even get to read the conflicts question, I ran out of time. I had about 30 seconds left when I got to that question. I realized it was a conflicts question, so I literally wrote "Pennsylvania uses a hybrid approach and applies the law of the state that has the most qualitative contacts with the case" and that was it. Hopefully that's enough to earn me 1 point on that question, haha. But seriously, I'm worried that the conflicts question will count for like 10 points.

I'm praying the corporations question was worth the most on that last essay

Acdc54 wrote:And only had time to write about the implied warranty of merchantability and not an express warranty

I don't think you needed to write about express warranty; the question said to talk about implied warranties. They posted the questions, in case you haven't seen, here's the link: http://www.pabarexam.org/bar_exam_information/essay.htm