NY July 2016 Thread Forum

[MCFC]

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.

You mean some reason they might not have any interest?

[mvp99]

[Rahviveh]

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.

I thought it had to do with accession vs conmingling.

[whitecollar23]

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?

wait, which one was which? freaking out about this now

Green was #1. Purple was #2.

oh damn, I think I did them in the wrong order too

I'm just screwing with you, haha. Green was really #2. <3

[NoLongerALurker]

For MPT --- 1 = the tenant; 2 = the tax

[shouldershoulders]

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?

wait, which one was which? freaking out about this now

Green was #1. Purple was #2.

I think it was reverse? I think?


Edit: tax was 2nd right?

...

[mvp99]

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.

You mean some reason they might not have any interest?

you're not alone on this one

[LionelHutzJD]

[/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.

[whitecollar23]

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]

To those who did it reverse, I think it would take the legit Grinch who stole Christmas to not realize the simple swap

[shouldershoulders]

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?

wait, which one was which? freaking out about this now

Green was #1. Purple was #2.

oh damn, I think I did them in the wrong order too

I'm just screwing with you, haha. Green was really #2. <3

smh dude not cool

[Rahviveh]

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 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.[/quote]

Even with permission?

[Br3v]

What do we need for partial credit?

[whitecollar23]

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.

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.

[whitecollar23]

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 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.)

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?[/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.

[mvp99]

[Rahviveh]

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.

I thought it had to do with accession vs conmingling.

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.

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]

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

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.)

ALL repossession the entails *entering the debtor's property* is considered breach of the peace.

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!!!

Edit

[mvp99]

[whitecollar23]

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.

I thought it had to do with accession vs conmingling.

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.

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?

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.

[mvp99]

[Rahviveh]

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.

I thought it had to do with accession vs conmingling.

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.

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?

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.

That's terrible. Such horrible little men who write these questions.

[mvp99]

[Br3v]

I wonder how many issues we had to spot on essays to get a pass or near pass?