NY July 2016 Thread Forum

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this 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."
User avatar
MCFC

Platinum
Posts: 9695
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by MCFC » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:37 pm

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.
You mean some reason they might not have any interest?

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by mvp99 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:37 pm

:lol:
Last edited by mvp99 on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rahviveh

Gold
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by Rahviveh » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:37 pm

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.
I thought it had to do with accession vs conmingling.

whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by whitecollar23 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:38 pm

shouldershoulders wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:
shouldershoulders wrote:
Thebarmakesmesad 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?
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

Bronze
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 2:08 am

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by NoLongerALurker » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:38 pm

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

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


shouldershoulders

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:04 am

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by shouldershoulders » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:38 pm

Br3v wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:
shouldershoulders wrote:
Thebarmakesmesad 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?
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?
...
Last edited by shouldershoulders on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by mvp99 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:38 pm

MCFC wrote:
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.
You mean some reason they might not have any interest?
you're not alone on this one

User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by LionelHutzJD » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:39 pm

[/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

Bronze
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by whitecollar23 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:39 pm

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.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


User avatar
Br3v

Gold
Posts: 4290
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by Br3v » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:39 pm

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.

shouldershoulders

New
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 12:04 am

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by shouldershoulders » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:39 pm

whitecollar23 wrote:
shouldershoulders wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:
shouldershoulders wrote:
Thebarmakesmesad 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?
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

User avatar
Rahviveh

Gold
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by Rahviveh » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:40 pm

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 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?

User avatar
Br3v

Gold
Posts: 4290
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by Br3v » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:41 pm

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!


whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by whitecollar23 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:41 pm

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.
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

Bronze
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by whitecollar23 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:42 pm

Rahviveh wrote:
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 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

Silver
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by mvp99 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:42 pm

:lol:
Last edited by mvp99 on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rahviveh

Gold
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by Rahviveh » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:43 pm

mvp99 wrote:
Rahviveh wrote:
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.
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?

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by mvp99 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:43 pm

:lol:
Last edited by mvp99 on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre

Gold
Posts: 2481
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by Monochromatic Oeuvre » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:44 pm

mvp99 wrote:
whitecollar23 wrote:
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.)
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
Last edited by Monochromatic Oeuvre on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by mvp99 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:44 pm

:lol:
Last edited by mvp99 on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

whitecollar23

Bronze
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by whitecollar23 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:45 pm

Rahviveh wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
Rahviveh wrote:
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.
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.

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!


mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by mvp99 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:46 pm

:lol:
Last edited by mvp99 on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Rahviveh

Gold
Posts: 2333
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by Rahviveh » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:47 pm

whitecollar23 wrote:
Rahviveh wrote:
mvp99 wrote:
Rahviveh wrote:
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.
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

Silver
Posts: 1474
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by mvp99 » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:49 pm

:lol:
Last edited by mvp99 on Tue Jul 26, 2016 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Br3v

Gold
Posts: 4290
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: NY July 2016 Thread

Post by Br3v » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:50 pm

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!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”