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

[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 ?

Yes to the second question, the title is unmarketable if acquired through adverse possession because of the risk of litigation. I think of marketable title as a counterbalance to equitable conversion. Even though the law regards the buyer as the equitable owner and the seller a possessor holding the title in trust for the buyer, the seller can't make the buyer accept delivery if the title is unmarketable. So the marketable title warranty is useful to stop a transaction where the seller is rendering a bad title.

[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.

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.

They are confusing. Luckily I worked at a boutique Wills and Trusts shop for a year. Every super rich client would set up a Revocable Trust with their Will. They are primarily used to avoid probate. However, be aware of Support and Discretionary trusts, I would study those the most as they are easily testable. Think of them as paragraphs within a larger trust document because they aren't trusts in and of themselves (although they could technically be).

[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 ?

Yes to the second question, the title is unmarketable if acquired through adverse possession because of the risk of litigation. I think of marketable title as a counterbalance to equitable conversion. Even though the law regards the buyer as the equitable owner and the seller a possessor holding the title in trust for the buyer, the seller can't make the buyer accept delivery if the title is unmarketable. So the marketable title warranty is useful to stop a transaction where the seller is rendering a bad title.

Thanks, so then you would have to quiet title right? How else can you convey?

[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 ?

Yes to the second question, the title is unmarketable if acquired through adverse possession because of the risk of litigation. I think of marketable title as a counterbalance to equitable conversion. Even though the law regards the buyer as the equitable owner and the seller a possessor holding the title in trust for the buyer, the seller can't make the buyer accept delivery if the title is unmarketable. So the marketable title warranty is useful to stop a transaction where the seller is rendering a bad title.

Thanks, so then you would have to quiet title right? How else can you convey?

You have to quiet title when the buyer claims the title is unmarketable. If the buyer doesn't and you can convey it. If there is delivery, then there is merger and the implied marketable title warranty doesn't survive. The buyer will have a validly conveyed title (a bad title with risk of litigation that is) and will have to sue using a different warranty or theory like misrepresentation, fraud etc.

edit: I think I've never thought about it like this for MBE questions. Sometimes there's a fact pattern that shows the title is unmarketable and the question asks whether the seller can get specific performance. My answer is no because there is not marketable title, even when there is no fact that states the buyer claimed marketable title warranty as a defense.

[SLS_AMG]

A lot of good questions in here, and I think it's important to learn these subtleties, but I can't help but think that nowhere near 80% of first-time test takers from ABA schools know the subjects with these levels of detail. Am I being naive or are we the over prepared/neurotic ones?

[mvp99]

A lot of good questions in here, and I think it's important to learn these subtleties, but I can't help but think that nowhere near 80% of first-time test takers from ABA schools know the subjects with these levels of detail. Am I being naive or are we the over prepared/neurotic ones?

Nah we're over prepared.

[SLS_AMG]

Was hoping so. I mean the pass rate is pretty high for ABA first-time takers. Just don't see that many people knowing all this stuff.

[LionelHutzJD]

A lot of good questions in here, and I think it's important to learn these subtleties, but I can't help but think that nowhere near 80% of first-time test takers from ABA schools know the subjects with these levels of detail. Am I being naive or are we the over prepared/neurotic ones?

Over prepared and neurotic.

I can't wait for this to be over.

[mvp99]

I was able to spew like 7 short paragraphs but managed to score at most 9 points in the trusts essay (so significantly below passing).

[+] Spoiler

I didn't read the settlor's intent about his son as him wanting the child's issue to receive something. I read it to mean that if Son died before the wife, then to his Grandchild (as an identifiable person, not his "grandchildren"). So I wrote that simply writing "remaining trust assets to be distributed to Son if his alive and if not to Grandchild" would be enough. Also said that the Husband could avoid the trust all together for himself and simply pour over his assets into a trust by will, that way he could avoid extra costs of running a trust and have full control.

Anyone else with an answer different from model answer?

[goden]

So much for taking the day off, Sublime lol. But no idk how


And what is OPE-4?

Hah. I will at least do some stuff until happy hour.

And I have OPE 4 in Emmanuel's but they fucking have the answer right under every question so it is nearly worthless.

wait OPE 4 is in emmanuel's? are those the questions in emmanuel's strategies and tactics 2?

[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?

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).

Are they all available for us to take whenever (i.e., not assigned by Barbri ever)? Cuz thats awesome!

#allthequestions!

[MCFC]

Are they all available for us to take whenever (i.e., not assigned by Barbri ever)? Cuz thats awesome!

#allthequestions!

I mean, I just found out they existed yesterday, so I am probably the wrong guy to ask.

Anyways, in looking at all the assignments in the PSP, it looks like Sets 1-3 get assigned eventually.

[Br3v]

Under the UCC, if price is not mentioned, will it be filled in at time of contract or time of delivery?

Actually, same Q for service K

[LionelHutzJD]

Under the UCC, if price is not mentioned, will it be filled in at time of contract or time of delivery?

Actually, same Q for service K

Reasonable price at the time of delivery. UCC 2-305

[Br3v]

Under the UCC, if price is not mentioned, will it be filled in at time of contract or time of delivery?

Actually, same Q for service K

Reasonable price at the time of delivery. UCC 2-305

You're a gentleman and a scholar. What about service Ks? I assume at time of performance?

So if I make a K with you to to paint my house 4 years from now (in writing). CL can fill in price too right?

[mvp99]

for those frustrated by a few of today's evidence questions, know that the bar exam question won't depend so much on factual issues

[LionelHutzJD]

Under the UCC, if price is not mentioned, will it be filled in at time of contract or time of delivery?

Actually, same Q for service K

Reasonable price at the time of delivery. UCC 2-305

You're a gentleman and a scholar. What about service Ks? I assume at time of performance?

So if I make a K with you to to paint my house 4 years from now (in writing). CL can fill in price too right?

I think it's very fact specific. If I say to you that I will paint your house for a "fair price" this might be too vague to even constitute a valid offer. Maybe someone else can elaborate more on this.

The exception is contracts for land. You must ALWAYS include a price for a land contract.

[mvp99]

bet $20 that todays webinar's purpose is to sell us the $129 mini-review

[LionelHutzJD]

Does anyone know if the Javits Center has outlets for computer chargers for us?

[skri65]

Question 88 of the simulated MBE was the question that involved a large-scale bakery in the South contracting with an apple orchard to purchase bushels of apples. The contract stated "F.O.B. Louisville Railroad Depot."

[+] Spoiler

Does anyone understand why the UCC provisions regarding common carriers and risk of loss were not applicable here?

[sublime]

Fob modifies the general rule

[skri65]

Fob modifies the general rule

? Which general rule?

I thought the general UCC rule was that if the FOB states the location of anywhere but the seller's destination or the original destination of the goods, it is a shipment contract and the seller's obligations end when he completes his delivery obligations (e.g., gets the goods to a common carrier, makes reasonable arrangements for delivery, notifies buyer).

Perhaps I'm lost in the weeds here.

[sublime]

Fob modifies the general rule

? Which general rule?

I thought the general UCC rule was that if the FOB states the location of anywhere but the seller's destination or the original destination of the goods, it is a shipment contract and the seller's obligations end when he completes his delivery obligations (e.g., gets the goods to a common carrier, makes reasonable arrangements for delivery, notifies buyer).

Perhaps I'm lost in the weeds here.

CP says that:

Shipment Ks - FOB [sellers city]
Delivery obligation satisfied when seller delivers goods to common carrier, makes reasonable arrangements for delivery, notifies buyer. Once complete, risk of loss shifts to buyer.

Destination K's - anything not FOB [sellers city]
Sellers delivery obligation satisfied only when goods arrive at buyers location

[skri65]

Fob modifies the general rule

? Which general rule?

I thought the general UCC rule was that if the FOB states the location of anywhere but the seller's destination or the original destination of the goods, it is a shipment contract and the seller's obligations end when he completes his delivery obligations (e.g., gets the goods to a common carrier, makes reasonable arrangements for delivery, notifies buyer).

Perhaps I'm lost in the weeds here.

CP says that:

Shipment Ks - FOB [sellers city]
Delivery obligation satisfied when seller delivers goods to common carrier, makes reasonable arrangements for delivery, notifies buyer. Once complete, risk of loss shifts to buyer.

Destination K's - anything not FOB [sellers city]
Sellers delivery obligation satisfied only when goods arrive at buyers location

Ok, so bottom line, this was a destination contract so the risk of loss is on the seller? The answer in the booklet only confused me more.

[sublime]

Fob modifies the general rule

? Which general rule?

I thought the general UCC rule was that if the FOB states the location of anywhere but the seller's destination or the original destination of the goods, it is a shipment contract and the seller's obligations end when he completes his delivery obligations (e.g., gets the goods to a common carrier, makes reasonable arrangements for delivery, notifies buyer).

Perhaps I'm lost in the weeds here.

CP says that:

Shipment Ks - FOB [sellers city]
Delivery obligation satisfied when seller delivers goods to common carrier, makes reasonable arrangements for delivery, notifies buyer. Once complete, risk of loss shifts to buyer.

Destination K's - anything not FOB [sellers city]
Sellers delivery obligation satisfied only when goods arrive at buyers location

Ok, so bottom line, this was a destination contract so the risk of loss is on the seller? The answer in the booklet only confused me more.

Yea, I didn;t reread the Q, but I think so.