BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 (UBE -NY) Forum

[ellewoods123]

I think i'm going to go rouge from Barbri from now until the test and do my own thing. MBE questions, learning the MEE subject specific law and reading/writing out MEE model answers.

Is anyone else straying from Barbri?

I kinda want to, but I don't think I actually will.

I've strayed from Barbri since the Simulated MBE. My MBE prep has been mostly Adaptibar so that I make sure I have answered and reviewed all of the available questions before game day, and I mix in a Barbri Mixed Set at night just to keep a feel for Barbri's way of questioning. I'm ending with focusing entirely and heavily on the essays and MPTs next week.

I like ya style.

Also, on gameday, if we are hit with an MPT that requires a demand letter or jury instructions we will be given a format and everything we will need to understand how to do those right? (I have no clue what a proper demand letter or jury instructions look like)

I sure hope so cause I don't have a clue. But thats why I'm at least planning to run though the sample MPTs in the Barbri book so that I'm not going in totally blind. But even those rare MPT samples from previous years that had demand letters etc included formatting instructions.

Also - I was SHOCKED to see a "closing argument" assigned for an MPT one year. I don't know about you guys but I was on trial team/moot court, have done my fair share of closing arguments and have been taught a BILLION different "correct" ways to write a closing from a billion different more than qualified trial attorneys, the majority having completely different styles and opinions. Seems ridiculous to test something like that, but thats just my rant of the day

[MCFC]

I understand this is a little late in the game to be asking this, but will all the BarBri MBE questions be assigned eventually? In other words, am I going to miss out on practice questions if I only do my Personal Study Plan?

this isn't meant to freak you out at all nor am I suggesting that sticking to the PSP is not sufficient (I think its fine) but there are a ton of other practice questions on the Barbri Enrolled Student Center that, to my understanding, don't get assigned in the PSP if you're looking for more! There's a bunch of additional 50 Mixed Sets and then Set A/Set B/Drill sets of 18Qs in each subject (but I have noticed some repeats in those sets of questioned assigned in the PSP so they definitely aren't all new)

Hahahaha oh man. Thank you.

[mvp99]

Prop set 5 wasn't that difficult compared to other set 5s. 66% but I missed 4/5 estates; leases; co-tenancies

[WheatThins]

Prop set 5 wasn't that difficult compared to other set 5s. 66% but I missed 4/5 estates; leases; co-tenancies

I thought it was a bitch. 10/18, after doing better on earlier ones.

[djwjddl]

This may be a really dumb question, but i'm not sure if i'm understanding the 11A and doctrine of sovereign immunity very well? If private citizens and foreign officials are barred from asserting claims against a state government (with a few exceptions), how are states sued for violations of the constitution, such as the dormant commerce clause, P+I, etc.?

[ellewoods123]

This may be a really dumb question, but i'm not sure if i'm understanding the 11A and doctrine of sovereign immunity very well? If private citizens and foreign officials are barred from asserting claims against a state government (with a few exceptions), how are states sued for violations of the constitution, such as the dormant commerce clause, P+I, etc.?

I had the same dumb question..I decided the answer was (per the lecture) that you get around sovereign immunity by naming the proper state official as the defendant rather than the state itself .. I'm not sure if that's correct

[mvp99]

This may be a really dumb question, but i'm not sure if i'm understanding the 11A and doctrine of sovereign immunity very well? If private citizens and foreign officials are barred from asserting claims against a state government (with a few exceptions), how are states sued for violations of the constitution, such as the dormant commerce clause, P+I, etc.?

I had the same dumb question..I decided the answer was (per the lecture) that you get around sovereign immunity by naming the proper state official as the defendant rather than the state itself .. I'm not sure if that's correct

That's correct. Or when Congress removes immunity pursuant to an amendment (I think only the 13th? please confirm) or the state waives immunity.

[LionelHutzJD]

This may be a really dumb question, but i'm not sure if i'm understanding the 11A and doctrine of sovereign immunity very well? If private citizens and foreign officials are barred from asserting claims against a state government (with a few exceptions), how are states sued for violations of the constitution, such as the dormant commerce clause, P+I, etc.?

I had the same dumb question..I decided the answer was (per the lecture) that you get around sovereign immunity by naming the proper state official as the defendant rather than the state itself .. I'm not sure if that's correct

That's correct. Or when Congress removes immunity pursuant to an amendment (I think only the 13th? please confirm) or the state waives immunity.

The only suits permitted against State officers are for injunctive relief in violation of the Const. or a Federal Law. Alternatively, a suit that is to be paid from the state officer PERSONALLY, and not from State funds itself (I think the Treasury).

So for any claim in violation of the C or a statute that burdens interstate commerce, you can only seek injunctive relief.

[fauxpsych]

This may be a really dumb question, but i'm not sure if i'm understanding the 11A and doctrine of sovereign immunity very well? If private citizens and foreign officials are barred from asserting claims against a state government (with a few exceptions), how are states sued for violations of the constitution, such as the dormant commerce clause, P+I, etc.?

I had the same dumb question..I decided the answer was (per the lecture) that you get around sovereign immunity by naming the proper state official as the defendant rather than the state itself .. I'm not sure if that's correct

That's correct. Or when Congress removes immunity pursuant to an amendment (I think only the 13th? please confirm) or the state waives immunity.

My understanding is that States (like NY) waive it through statute (See Article II of NY's Court of Claims Act)

[Br3v]

From what I remember in law school, the "badges of slavery" doctrine of the 13th Amendment were not really used, and instead the commerce clause was typically used to regulate behavior. Barbri though tends to place a lot of emphasis on the 13th.

Like the civil rights act, the power used for that was CC not 13th right?

[mvp99]

From what I remember in law school, the "badges of slavery" doctrine of the 13th Amendment were not really used, and instead the commerce clause was typically used to regulate behavior. Barbri though tends to place a lot of emphasis on the 13th.

Like the civil rights act, the power used for that was CC not 13th right?

Yea congress can promote general constitutional values using the commerce clause but the 13th can be use to reach completely private behavior (badges and incidents of slavery?) while with the commerce clause it must have some permissible connection to commerce.

The civil rights act was enacted using the commerce clause power.

"Many of these civil rights provi­sions, like Title II, rely on other con­gressional authorities in the Consti­tution (and not the seemingly more obvious authorities in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amend­ments). Thus, Title II not only cleverly addressed the acute and potentially intractable problem of private racial discrimination, it also showed how Congress might use its entire arsenal of authorities to enforce civil rights.... Con­gress has enacted effective civil rights legislation under the Commerce Clause, the Spending Clause, even the Taxing Clause, and more. This ongoing civil rights movement now touches nearly every area of our lives. And it started with the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

[yodamiked]

Anyone understand the answer to the third part of the Property Essay assigned today? It was gibberish to me, and I literally just finished reading through the entire property outline before doing the essay.

[generaltoast]

Anyone understand the answer to the third part of the Property Essay assigned today? It was gibberish to me, and I literally just finished reading through the entire property outline before doing the essay.

[+] Spoiler

The covenant against encumbrances is a present covenant. (of the six covenants of the general warranty deed, three are present, three are future). Present covenants are breached at the time of conveyance and do not run with the land. Because they dont run with the land, subsequent grantees cannot sue the original grantor for the breach. I found this in the CMR page 52 of the property outline, section 1. b.

[mvp99]

Anyone understand the answer to the third part of the Property Essay assigned today? It was gibberish to me, and I literally just finished reading through the entire property outline before doing the essay.

[+] Spoiler

Owen > Abe > Bob. So the answer to this question involves contracts and real property. There must be privity between the parties for a claim to arise, either in contract or estate. There is no contract privity between Owen and Bob.

To have privity of estate, the covenant must run with the land. There are two types, present (sesin, right to convey, free of encumbrances) and future covenants (I'll make sure this title is perfected and will defend you against a a lawful claim of title) in a general warranty deed. The only relevant covenant is free of encumbrances (land is encumbered by the gas line) and this is a present covenant (one that will be breached if at all at the time of delivery). Since present covenants do not run with the land they are not in privity of estate.

Had the covenant breached been about Owen's covenant to do everything in his power to perfect title, Owen would have been in privity of estate with Bob.

In case you're wondering, I wrote something similar to this mentioning both kinds of privities but I didn't know specifically that present covenants did not run with the land.

edit: I actually wrote more about privity of contract lol

[yodamiked]

Anyone understand the answer to the third part of the Property Essay assigned today? It was gibberish to me, and I literally just finished reading through the entire property outline before doing the essay.

[+] Spoiler

The covenant against encumbrances is a present covenant. (of the six covenants of the general warranty deed, three are present, three are future). Present covenants are breached at the time of conveyance and do not run with the land. Because they dont run with the land, subsequent grantees cannot sue the original grantor for the breach. I found this in the CMR page 52 of the property outline, section 1. b.

Awesome! That makes sense, thanks!

[yodamiked]

Anyone understand the answer to the third part of the Property Essay assigned today? It was gibberish to me, and I literally just finished reading through the entire property outline before doing the essay.

[+] Spoiler

Owen > Abe > Bob. So the answer to this question involves contracts and real property. There must be privity between the parties for a claim to arise, either in contract or estate. There is no contract privity between Owen and Bob.

To have privity of estate, the covenant must run with the land. There are two types, present (sesin, right to convey, free of encumbrances) and future covenants (I'll make sure this titles to perfected and will defend you against a a lawful claim of title) in a general warranty deed. The only relevant covenant is free of encumbrances (land is encumbered by the gas line) and this is a present covenant (one that will be breached if at all at the time of delivery). Since present covenants do not run with the land they are not in privity of estate.

Had the covenant breached been about Owen's covenant to do everything in his power to perfect title, Owen would have been in privity of estate with Bob.

In case you're wondering, I wrote something similar to this mentioning both kinds of privities but I didn't know specifically that present covenants did not run with the land.

Thanks, that's helpful!

[mvp99]

Be on the look out on the exam for similar questions relating to landlord, tenants, and sublesees. Who can sue will depend on the covenant (if it runs with the land) and whether privity exists (in K or estate).

[MCFC]

Just did a 50 question set of the additional practice problems (Set 7). Maybe it was just dumb luck but I thought it was significantly, significantly easier than some other problems that have been assigned.

I wonder if this is just luck of the draw, or some BarBri plan to have you do that last and think you've made this huge improvement.

[ArtistOfManliness]

Just did a 50 question set of the additional practice problems (Set 7). Maybe it was just dumb luck but I thought it was significantly, significantly easier than some other problems that have been assigned.

I wonder if this is just luck of the draw, or some BarBri plan to have you do that last and think you've made this huge improvement.

Where is set 7?

[LionelHutzJD]

Is it a requirement to quiet title through a court to validly convey title to land you acquired through adverse possession? Otherwise, wouldn't title be unmarketable for any conveyance of land that you acquired through adverse possession ?

[judgefudge]

Anybody else struggle with the Trusts essay? I didn't even know how to go about beginning that, and I felt like I understood trusts pretty well. Side note, any advice on how to get better at Trusts?

[MCFC]

Just did a 50 question set of the additional practice problems (Set 7). Maybe it was just dumb luck but I thought it was significantly, significantly easier than some other problems that have been assigned.

I wonder if this is just luck of the draw, or some BarBri plan to have you do that last and think you've made this huge improvement.

Where is set 7?

In the "Enrolled Student Center." (Click on the gear in the top right corner after signing in.) Then it's under Practice Questions (left hand side).

[LionelHutzJD]

Anybody else struggle with the Trusts essay? I didn't even know how to go about beginning that, and I felt like I understood trusts pretty well. Side note, any advice on how to get better at Trusts?

What specifically are you having trouble with? If it helps, Trusts are almost always created in basic Microsoft Word. Sometimes I think if people knew this basic fact, they can conceptualize it better. Once you can conceptualize it, learn the duties of the Trustee. Once you learn the duties, know that a creditor can only reach trust property if the beneficiary can reach it as well. 99% of trusts contain a Spendthrift provision. This provision not only prevents the beneficiary from transferring or taking the property but creditors as well.

[mvp99]

Is it a requirement to quiet title through a court to validly convey title to land you acquired through adverse possession? Otherwise, wouldn't title be unmarketable for any conveyance of land that you acquired through adverse possession ?

I think no to the first question.

You want to quiet title because you don't want the buyer to claim that you're in breach of the implied marketable title warranty before delivery. The seller must quiet title to eliminate any unreasonable risk of litigation (can a person claiming to own the land or anyone still sue even after quiet title? sure! does it make the title unmarketable? no). A seller can still validly convey title without bringing a quiet title action, the problem is that the seller possibly breached an express covenant like warranty of title, even though the buyer cannot sue using the marketable title warranty because it ends when the deed is delivered. If there is no express covenant, then the buyer is out of luck and has no recourse against the seller absent fraud, etc.

[judgefudge]

Anybody else struggle with the Trusts essay? I didn't even know how to go about beginning that, and I felt like I understood trusts pretty well. Side note, any advice on how to get better at Trusts?

What specifically are you having trouble with? If it helps, Trusts are almost always created in basic Microsoft Word. Sometimes I think if people knew this basic fact, they can conceptualize it better. Once you can conceptualize it, learn the duties of the Trustee. Once you learn the duties, know that a creditor can only reach trust property if the beneficiary can reach it as well. 99% of trusts contain a Spendthrift provision. This provision not only prevents the beneficiary from transferring or taking the property but creditors as well.

Thanks, that is helpful.

[+] Spoiler

I think I had trouble with this particular essay because it didn't really ask any specific questions, and since I don't know Trusts very well, it was hard to figure out how to improve the Trust. The answer made sense to me, I just couldn't get there on my own because I haven't had enough experience actually applying the rules so I couldn't put it all together.