July 2014 MBE Fine Points Forum

[The Egyptian]

A state statute allowing only landowners to vote in a referendum concerning the establishment of a watershed improvement district does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Source: (MBE 1992)

[LAWYER2]

Surface Water Rights
Applies to water from rain, springs, melting snow and ice. Common law "common enemy" rule applies - "Every landowner has right to obstruct and shut out a "common enemy" and may impound all surface waters she can capture.

Source: Kaplan MBE final review

[The Egyptian]

A tenant has standing to challenge the search of his apartment, even if he had not paid the rent and was in jail at the time of the search. (MBE 1992)

A writing stating that you will accept rent from the assignee instead of the assignor may be regarded as a novation that releases the assignor from liability. (MBE 1992)

[LAWYER2]

Elements of IIEd generally give rise to NIED where mishandling of corpse is involved.

Source: Kaplan MBE Review

[The Egyptian]

Elements of IIEd generally give rise to NIED where mishandling of corpse is involved.

Source: Kaplan MBE Review

When you see equitable conversion, look at who has equitable interest and who has legal interest.

Steps:
A father writes a will "All my real estate to my son, and all residuary to my daughter?
right after this, he enters into an agreement to sell a property then dies before closing and his representatives proceed to close the deal and close it and collect the proceeds.
Son has legal interest in the property.
daughter has equitable interest in the residuary.
Thus, daughter takes the proceeds since here she has equitable interest.


Source:
Last year, a buyer and a seller entered into a valid contract for the sale of a parcel of real property. The contract contained
no contingencies. The seller was killed in a car accident before the parcel was conveyed, but the closing eventually took
place with the conveyance by a deed from the personal representative of the seller’s estate.
The personal representative of the seller’s estate wants to distribute the proceeds of the real property sale. The seller’s will
was executed many years ago and was duly admitted to probate. Paragraph 5 of his will leaves all of the seller’s real
property to his son, and Paragraph 6 leaves the residue of the estate to the seller’s daughter. No other provisions of the will
are pertinent to the question regarding to whom the proceeds of the sale should be distributed.
What will determine who receives the proceeds?
(A) Whether Paragraph 5 refers specifically to the parcel of real property that was sold or simply to “all of my real
property.”
(B) Whether the closing date originally specified in the contract was a date before or after the seller’s death.
Incorrect. It does not matter whether the closing date was scheduled before or after the seller’s death. If the seller
had died after the closing, the proceeds would have passed to the daughter, who received the residue of the
estate. As it was, the seller died during the executory time period between the contract signing and the closing.
The contract contained no contingencies, and thus the doctrine of equitable conversion applied as of the date of
contract signing and determines who is entitled to the proceeds. The proceeds should go to the party who has the
equitable interest. In this case, the son had only a legal interest in the parcel at the time of the seller’s death, and
the daughter had the equitable interest in the proceeds and should receive them.
(C) Whether the jurisdiction has adopted the doctrine of equitable conversion.
(D) Whether the sale was completed in accordance with a court order.

[LAWYER2]

Fourth Amendment Civil lawsuit variation

D's guilty plea neither admits the legality of the incriminating search, nor waives 4th Amendment claims in subsequent civil damages action challenging the constitutionality of the incriminating search.

Source: Barbri MBE Final exam review

[The Egyptian]

Fourth Amendment Civil lawsuit variation

D's guilty plea neither admits the legality of the incriminating search, nor waives 4th Amendment claims in subsequent civil damages action challenging the constitutionality of the incriminating search.

Source: Barbri MBE Final exam review

That's a good one!
Isn't that related to Hapeus corpus somewhow? or isn't that a road map to subsequently file for it?

If events render performance of the contract only temporarily impossible, performance is suspended until the impossibility ends unless performance would be much more burdensome, then suspension will turn into discharge.

[TheFactor]

Strict liability

If manufacturer builds a toaster for noncommercial purposes and the toaster is placed into the stream of commerce prior to April 15 (provided April 15 is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday), manufacturer will be strictly liable for injuries caused by defects in the toaster only if the noncommercial toaster was used by a member of the buyer's immediate family (but not the buyer) for a commercial purpose within 14 days of purchase.

Contributory negligence is a complete defense to liability.

[LAWYER2]

Abandonment of a Servitude - if a benefited party acquiesces to a violation of the servitude by one burdened party he may have abandoned the servitude as to other burdened parties.

Source: Barbri Final MBE review

[adonai]

Private necessity defense, right to sanctuary
The right to sanctuary extends also to property, meaning the property owner not only can't eject you from the property, but also your personal property. E.g. can't move your car that you parked on their driveway during a flood. You can sue for damages if they move your property and it gets damaged.

[The Egyptian]

Private necessity defense, right to sanctuary
The right to sanctuary extends also to property, meaning the property owner not only can't eject you from the property, but also your personal property. E.g. can't move your car that you parked on their driveway during a flood. You can sue for damages if they move your property and it gets damaged.

Sweet!
I got that question wrong too and I thought it is only to prevent bodily harm. Now, we know i's property.

Keep them coming. Looks like we are all racing at the same pace here.

BESSSSSSSSSSTTTTTT OF LUCK.


 Parents are not generally liable for the intentional torts of their children except when the parents are on notice or encouraged the behavior.

 Federal aid to all teachers except religion teachers is an undue governmental entanglement in religious affairs because of the need to police the restriction. ( I know this one is easy, but let's just put it out there)

 Now, this one is an antique!
If a person is charged under a state statute that makes blasphemy a criminal act but the statute is rarely enforced, the application of the statute to the individual denies him equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Law-So-Hard]

A plat is only intended to be a representation of the actual survey as made on the land itself. The plat is in the nature of a certified copy of an instrument that will be controlled by the original. Where a survey as made and marked on the ground conflicts with the plat, the survey prevails. Therefore, a buyer has the right to rely on the surveyor’s stakes as establishing the boundaries of the lot because the survey, not the plat controls.

[Law-So-Hard]

To later seek an appeal on a court’s ruling on an objection, the record on appeal must show that a specific objection was made and that the challenged evidence was inadmissible on that ground, before the trial court’s action can be considered error. The defense attorney who objected in trial and was overruled must, before trial concludes, to preserve the issue for appeal: restate the objection for the record, stating the grounds thereof.

[Law-So-Hard]

The covenant of quiet enjoyment can be breached only by the actions of the landlord and not those of a third party, such as the government.

In a partial condemnation case, the landlord-tenant relationship continues, as does the tenant’s obligation to pay the entire rent for the remaining lease term.

[The Egyptian]

Under the common law Rule against Perpetuities, class gifts to grandchildren that take effect when the grandchildren reach 21 are only valid in wills, not in inter vivos conveyances.

[northwood]

a mortgage by a joint tenancy will sever the joint tenancy and convert it into a tenancy in common in a title theory state, but NOT in a lien theory state

[Law-So-Hard]

Not a declaration against penal interest if declarant's been acquitted and can’t be tried again for the same crime.

[Law-So-Hard]

The double jeopardy bar is not absolute. A second trial does not violate the defendant’s constitutional rights as long as the trial judge has declare a mistrial in the first proceeding based on “manifest necessity.” (US v. Perez). There is no mechanical formula to determine whether a new trial is a “manifest necessity” but a paradigmatic case is a deadlocked jury.

[LAWYER2]

The doctrine of vicarious liability in criminal law is similar to the doctrine of respondeat superior in tort law, in that one person (usually an employer) who is without fault, is held liable for the criminal conduct of another person (usually an employee)
(selling alcohol to a minor, strict liability)

While courts have held that an employer is not vicariously liable for a strict liability offense for an employee's unauthorized act, in this case, the store owner was present when the clerk rang up the sale, thereby authorizing the assistant's act. As such, the store owner is criminally liable under the statute.

[Mr. Pink]

Elements of IIEd generally give rise to NIED where mishandling of corpse is involved.

Source: Kaplan MBE Review

When you see equitable conversion, look at who has equitable interest and who has legal interest.

Steps:
A father writes a will "All my real estate to my son, and all residuary to my daughter?
right after this, he enters into an agreement to sell a property then dies before closing and his representatives proceed to close the deal and close it and collect the proceeds.
Son has legal interest in the property.
daughter has equitable interest in the residuary.
Thus, daughter takes the proceeds since here she has equitable interest.


Source:
Last year, a buyer and a seller entered into a valid contract for the sale of a parcel of real property. The contract contained
no contingencies. The seller was killed in a car accident before the parcel was conveyed, but the closing eventually took
place with the conveyance by a deed from the personal representative of the seller’s estate.
The personal representative of the seller’s estate wants to distribute the proceeds of the real property sale. The seller’s will
was executed many years ago and was duly admitted to probate. Paragraph 5 of his will leaves all of the seller’s real
property to his son, and Paragraph 6 leaves the residue of the estate to the seller’s daughter. No other provisions of the will
are pertinent to the question regarding to whom the proceeds of the sale should be distributed.
What will determine who receives the proceeds?
(A) Whether Paragraph 5 refers specifically to the parcel of real property that was sold or simply to “all of my real
property.”
(B) Whether the closing date originally specified in the contract was a date before or after the seller’s death.
Incorrect. It does not matter whether the closing date was scheduled before or after the seller’s death. If the seller
had died after the closing, the proceeds would have passed to the daughter, who received the residue of the
estate. As it was, the seller died during the executory time period between the contract signing and the closing.
The contract contained no contingencies, and thus the doctrine of equitable conversion applied as of the date of
contract signing and determines who is entitled to the proceeds. The proceeds should go to the party who has the
equitable interest. In this case, the son had only a legal interest in the parcel at the time of the seller’s death, and
the daughter had the equitable interest in the proceeds and should receive them.
(C) Whether the jurisdiction has adopted the doctrine of equitable conversion.
(D) Whether the sale was completed in accordance with a court order.

Yeah I got that one wrong and you can bet your ass I won't get it wrong again.

[northwood]

Elements of IIEd generally give rise to NIED where mishandling of corpse is involved.

Source: Kaplan MBE Review

When you see equitable conversion, look at who has equitable interest and who has legal interest.

Steps:
A father writes a will "All my real estate to my son, and all residuary to my daughter?
right after this, he enters into an agreement to sell a property then dies before closing and his representatives proceed to close the deal and close it and collect the proceeds.
Son has legal interest in the property.
daughter has equitable interest in the residuary.
Thus, daughter takes the proceeds since here she has equitable interest.


Source:
Last year, a buyer and a seller entered into a valid contract for the sale of a parcel of real property. The contract contained
no contingencies. The seller was killed in a car accident before the parcel was conveyed, but the closing eventually took
place with the conveyance by a deed from the personal representative of the seller’s estate.
The personal representative of the seller’s estate wants to distribute the proceeds of the real property sale. The seller’s will
was executed many years ago and was duly admitted to probate. Paragraph 5 of his will leaves all of the seller’s real
property to his son, and Paragraph 6 leaves the residue of the estate to the seller’s daughter. No other provisions of the will
are pertinent to the question regarding to whom the proceeds of the sale should be distributed.
What will determine who receives the proceeds?
(A) Whether Paragraph 5 refers specifically to the parcel of real property that was sold or simply to “all of my real
property.”
(B) Whether the closing date originally specified in the contract was a date before or after the seller’s death.
Incorrect. It does not matter whether the closing date was scheduled before or after the seller’s death. If the seller
had died after the closing, the proceeds would have passed to the daughter, who received the residue of the
estate. As it was, the seller died during the executory time period between the contract signing and the closing.
The contract contained no contingencies, and thus the doctrine of equitable conversion applied as of the date of
contract signing and determines who is entitled to the proceeds. The proceeds should go to the party who has the
equitable interest. In this case, the son had only a legal interest in the parcel at the time of the seller’s death, and
the daughter had the equitable interest in the proceeds and should receive them.
(C) Whether the jurisdiction has adopted the doctrine of equitable conversion.
(D) Whether the sale was completed in accordance with a court order.

Yeah I got that one wrong and you can bet your ass I won't get it wrong again.

answer's B, right?

[The Egyptian]

Elements of IIEd generally give rise to NIED where mishandling of corpse is involved.

Source: Kaplan MBE Review

When you see equitable conversion, look at who has equitable interest and who has legal interest.

Steps:
A father writes a will "All my real estate to my son, and all residuary to my daughter?
right after this, he enters into an agreement to sell a property then dies before closing and his representatives proceed to close the deal and close it and collect the proceeds.
Son has legal interest in the property.
daughter has equitable interest in the residuary.
Thus, daughter takes the proceeds since here she has equitable interest.


Source:
Last year, a buyer and a seller entered into a valid contract for the sale of a parcel of real property. The contract contained
no contingencies. The seller was killed in a car accident before the parcel was conveyed, but the closing eventually took
place with the conveyance by a deed from the personal representative of the seller’s estate.
The personal representative of the seller’s estate wants to distribute the proceeds of the real property sale. The seller’s will
was executed many years ago and was duly admitted to probate. Paragraph 5 of his will leaves all of the seller’s real
property to his son, and Paragraph 6 leaves the residue of the estate to the seller’s daughter. No other provisions of the will
are pertinent to the question regarding to whom the proceeds of the sale should be distributed.
What will determine who receives the proceeds?
(A) Whether Paragraph 5 refers specifically to the parcel of real property that was sold or simply to “all of my real
property.”
(B) Whether the closing date originally specified in the contract was a date before or after the seller’s death.
Incorrect. It does not matter whether the closing date was scheduled before or after the seller’s death. If the seller
had died after the closing, the proceeds would have passed to the daughter, who received the residue of the
estate. As it was, the seller died during the executory time period between the contract signing and the closing.
The contract contained no contingencies, and thus the doctrine of equitable conversion applied as of the date of
contract signing and determines who is entitled to the proceeds. The proceeds should go to the party who has the
equitable interest. In this case, the son had only a legal interest in the parcel at the time of the seller’s death, and
the daughter had the equitable interest in the proceeds and should receive them.
(C) Whether the jurisdiction has adopted the doctrine of equitable conversion.
(D) Whether the sale was completed in accordance with a court order.

Yeah I got that one wrong and you can bet your ass I won't get it wrong again.

Please tell me you got it wrong because you thought of "ademption"

[jd20132013]

no, it's C. just didthat a few days ago.

turns on EC because what matters is where title was at death.

[northwood]

no, it's C. just didthat a few days ago.

turns on EC because what matters is where title was at death.

yea I saw that the answer choice says its Not B... took a cursory look at the answer choices( the font bugs my eyes sometimes) and was wondering how they got there

[Mr. Pink]

Actually had to re-read that one and noticed that the question I had was slightly different. Mine asked who received what (or something to that extent) and I chose the answer that the son received the proceeds because he inherited the property and closing was after the disbursement of property... thinking that it would be like him selling the property. But the correct answer that the buyer got the property, son got nothing, and daughter got the proceeds because of EC.