You mean some reason they might not have any interest?Br3v wrote:Lol at that intricate ST rule. Props to anyone who knew that.
What about the last part of the ST about anything else? I couldn't find any facts that even made it an open question which made me think I was missing something.
NY July 2016 Thread Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
- MCFC
- Posts: 9695
- Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:46 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
-
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm
- Rahviveh
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
I thought it had to do with accession vs conmingling.Br3v wrote:Lol at that intricate ST rule. Props to anyone who knew that.
What about the last part of the ST about anything else? I couldn't find any facts that even made it an open question which made me think I was missing something.
-
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
I'm just screwing with you, haha. Green was really #2. <3shouldershoulders wrote:oh damn, I think I did them in the wrong order toowhitecollar23 wrote:Green was #1. Purple was #2.shouldershoulders wrote:wait, which one was which? freaking out about this nowThebarmakesmesad wrote:I filled in my answer to MPT #2 in the space for MPT #1. I'm freaking out because I don't want to fail the bar because I entered my answers in the wrong order. They gave me MPT #2 as the top booklet and I didn't see it was labeled with a number. When I asked the proctor she said it was fine and a lot of people do this, but I don't know if that is reliable.
Did anyone else do this?
-
- Posts: 408
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:08 am
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
For MPT --- 1 = the tenant; 2 = the tax
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:04 am
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
...Br3v wrote:I think it was reverse? I think?whitecollar23 wrote:Green was #1. Purple was #2.shouldershoulders wrote:wait, which one was which? freaking out about this nowThebarmakesmesad wrote:I filled in my answer to MPT #2 in the space for MPT #1. I'm freaking out because I don't want to fail the bar because I entered my answers in the wrong order. They gave me MPT #2 as the top booklet and I didn't see it was labeled with a number. When I asked the proctor she said it was fine and a lot of people do this, but I don't know if that is reliable.
Did anyone else do this?
Edit: tax was 2nd right?
Last edited by shouldershoulders on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
you're not alone on this oneMCFC wrote:You mean some reason they might not have any interest?Br3v wrote:Lol at that intricate ST rule. Props to anyone who knew that.
What about the last part of the ST about anything else? I couldn't find any facts that even made it an open question which made me think I was missing something.
- LionelHutzJD
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
[/quote]
I don't think this is right. You can enter a driveway to impound a car without permission. There is another question though whether entering the property with permission to do something and doing something else outside the scope of permission is a breach of peace since you're really a trespasser at that point. HOLY SHIT GUYS THERE WAS A TORT ISSUE INSIDE THIS QUESTION!!![/quote]
Pretty much what I said.
I don't think this is right. You can enter a driveway to impound a car without permission. There is another question though whether entering the property with permission to do something and doing something else outside the scope of permission is a breach of peace since you're really a trespasser at that point. HOLY SHIT GUYS THERE WAS A TORT ISSUE INSIDE THIS QUESTION!!![/quote]
Pretty much what I said.
-
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
If it's considered a "repossession," then yes, it's considered a breach of the peace, even though he had permission to be there.[/quote]
Not all repossession is breach of the peace.
(Not that it matters at this point. If you discussed something about the issue, you're fine. Bigger fish to fry.)[/quote]
ALL repossession the entails *entering the debtor's property* is considered breach of the peace.[/quote]
I don't think this is right. You can enter a driveway to impound a car without permission. There is another question though whether entering the property with permission to do something and doing something else outside the scope of permission is a breach of peace since you're really a trespasser at that point. HOLY SHIT GUYS THERE WAS A TORT ISSUE INSIDE THIS QUESTION!!![/quote]
Na, not torts. Simply breach of peace because he entered the property. This came up in the Kaplan lecture on ST.
- Br3v
- Posts: 4290
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
To those who did it reverse, I think it would take the legit Grinch who stole Christmas to not realize the simple swap
Last edited by Br3v on Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:04 am
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
smh dude not coolwhitecollar23 wrote:I'm just screwing with you, haha. Green was really #2. <3shouldershoulders wrote:oh damn, I think I did them in the wrong order toowhitecollar23 wrote:Green was #1. Purple was #2.shouldershoulders wrote:wait, which one was which? freaking out about this nowThebarmakesmesad wrote:I filled in my answer to MPT #2 in the space for MPT #1. I'm freaking out because I don't want to fail the bar because I entered my answers in the wrong order. They gave me MPT #2 as the top booklet and I didn't see it was labeled with a number. When I asked the proctor she said it was fine and a lot of people do this, but I don't know if that is reliable.
Did anyone else do this?
- Rahviveh
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
Not all repossession is breach of the peace.whitecollar23 wrote:If it's considered a "repossession," then yes, it's considered a breach of the peace, even though he had permission to be there.
(Not that it matters at this point. If you discussed something about the issue, you're fine. Bigger fish to fry.)[/quote]
ALL repossession the entails *entering the debtor's property* is considered breach of the peace.[/quote]
I don't think this is right. You can enter a driveway to impound a car without permission. There is another question though whether entering the property with permission to do something and doing something else outside the scope of permission is a breach of peace since you're really a trespasser at that point. HOLY SHIT GUYS THERE WAS A TORT ISSUE INSIDE THIS QUESTION!!![/quote]
Na, not torts. Simply breach of peace because he entered the property. This came up in the Kaplan lecture on ST.[/quote]
Even with permission?
- Br3v
- Posts: 4290
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
What do we need for partial credit?
Last edited by Br3v on Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
The last ST was an issue about proceeds. Given that the equipment was leased and PTT wasn't paid yet, there would be be accounts receivable for what they were owed.Br3v wrote:Lol at that intricate ST rule. Props to anyone who knew that.
What about the last part of the ST about anything else? I couldn't find any facts that even made it an open question which made me think I was missing something.
-
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
ALL repossession the entails *entering the debtor's property* is considered breach of the peace.[/quote]Rahviveh wrote:Not all repossession is breach of the peace.whitecollar23 wrote:If it's considered a "repossession," then yes, it's considered a breach of the peace, even though he had permission to be there.
(Not that it matters at this point. If you discussed something about the issue, you're fine. Bigger fish to fry.)
I don't think this is right. You can enter a driveway to impound a car without permission. There is another question though whether entering the property with permission to do something and doing something else outside the scope of permission is a breach of peace since you're really a trespasser at that point. HOLY SHIT GUYS THERE WAS A TORT ISSUE INSIDE THIS QUESTION!!![/quote]
Na, not torts. Simply breach of peace because he entered the property. This came up in the Kaplan lecture on ST.[/quote]
Even with permission?[/quote]
If my memory isn't deceiving me. I recall the professor giving some example of where the person repossessing had entered the property with permission. Didn't matter. I could mis-remember, but I don't think I am.
-
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm
- Rahviveh
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
Yeah I don't remember those rules so I just BSed it. But I assumed having an interest in the fixture doesn't give you an interest in the real property. What more to it was there?mvp99 wrote:I don't think so because there are specific rules about real estate and fixtures and not readily removable fixtures.. this was not tires on a car.Rahviveh wrote:I thought it had to do with accession vs conmingling.Br3v wrote:Lol at that intricate ST rule. Props to anyone who knew that.
What about the last part of the ST about anything else? I couldn't find any facts that even made it an open question which made me think I was missing something.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm
- Monochromatic Oeuvre
- Posts: 2481
- Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
Editmvp99 wrote:I don't think this is right. You can enter a driveway to impound a car without permission. There is another question though whether entering the property with permission to do something and doing something else outside the scope of permission is a breach of peace since you're really a trespasser at that point. HOLY SHIT GUYS THERE WAS A TORT ISSUE INSIDE THIS QUESTION!!!whitecollar23 wrote:ALL repossession the entails *entering the debtor's property* is considered breach of the peace.Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
Not all repossession is breach of the peace.
(Not that it matters at this point. If you discussed something about the issue, you're fine. Bigger fish to fry.)
Last edited by Monochromatic Oeuvre on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm
-
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
The last ST was an issue about proceeds. Given that the equipment was leased and PTT wasn't paid yet, there would be be accounts receivable for what they were owed.Rahviveh wrote:Yeah I don't remember those rules so I just BSed it. But I assumed having an interest in the fixture doesn't give you an interest in the real property. What more to it was there?mvp99 wrote:I don't think so because there are specific rules about real estate and fixtures and not readily removable fixtures.. this was not tires on a car.Rahviveh wrote:I thought it had to do with accession vs conmingling.Br3v wrote:Lol at that intricate ST rule. Props to anyone who knew that.
What about the last part of the ST about anything else? I couldn't find any facts that even made it an open question which made me think I was missing something.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm
- Rahviveh
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
That's terrible. Such horrible little men who write these questions.whitecollar23 wrote:The last ST was an issue about proceeds. Given that the equipment was leased and PTT wasn't paid yet, there would be be accounts receivable for what they were owed.Rahviveh wrote:Yeah I don't remember those rules so I just BSed it. But I assumed having an interest in the fixture doesn't give you an interest in the real property. What more to it was there?mvp99 wrote:I don't think so because there are specific rules about real estate and fixtures and not readily removable fixtures.. this was not tires on a car.Rahviveh wrote:I thought it had to do with accession vs conmingling.Br3v wrote:Lol at that intricate ST rule. Props to anyone who knew that.
What about the last part of the ST about anything else? I couldn't find any facts that even made it an open question which made me think I was missing something.
-
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm
- Br3v
- Posts: 4290
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm
Re: NY July 2016 Thread
I wonder how many issues we had to spot on essays to get a pass or near pass?
Last edited by Br3v on Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login