2017 July California Bar 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."
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."
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
i know everyone wants to compare how they did but don't let it bring you down for tomorrow. MBEs are worth 50%, you can make a lot of loss ground tomorrow. i'm in the same boat as all of you, I still think i missed something on the first call of the civ pro question...and probably did.
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Dee099 wrote:I spent way too much time on the per se aspect knowing Harry knew damn well he wasn't part of the class intended to be protected nor the the type of harm intented to prevent
Also can someone tell me if trying to avoid Probate raised an issue for Comm prop
I just said it goes to show the intent for the collateral agreement - JT title - to change the condo from SP to CP since they didn't have an express agreement
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:45 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
In SD they mentioned that this was a mistake because there used to be 2 days of essays, therefore 4 exam filesCAnow wrote:Received this orange card at the end of the exam:
"You must upload all four (4) exam answer files by 12:00 noon Thursday July 27, 2017"
Four???
- RoccoPan
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:43 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Does tomorrow start at the same time as today did (be there by 8:30)?
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:45 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Did anyone else mention on the Community Property essay that the attempted transfer from sole title to joint tenancy would have failed without a strawman, because joint tenancy requires unity of time?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
If it makes you feel better, my answer was super short. Basically: plaintiff can join as many claims as he has against defendant, regardless of whether or not they are related. There must also be PJ and SMJ with respect to both claims, which I believe there was. The end.nsv wrote:i know everyone wants to compare how they did but don't let it bring you down for tomorrow. MBEs are worth 50%, you can make a lot of loss ground tomorrow. i'm in the same boat as all of you, I still think i missed something on the first call of the civ pro question...and probably did.
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:17 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
when are we supposed to be there tomorrow? stranded in ontario at a hotel where everyone is taking the exam yet nobody is around
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
nsv wrote:i know everyone wants to compare how they did but don't let it bring you down for tomorrow. MBEs are worth 50%, you can make a lot of loss ground tomorrow. i'm in the same boat as all of you, I still think i missed something on the first call of the civ pro question...and probably did.
I got screwed on the Joinder of Claims too.... I talked about Compulsory Joinder and Permissive FML
-
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:45 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Good plan. This rapidly became an unhealthy thread.ManoftheHour wrote: Edit: Aight I'm gonna stop reading this stuff. I left the exam feeling pretty good and now I'm starting to have doubts. Need to focus on the MBE tomorrow.
Last edited by mcmand on Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2015 10:57 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Yeah, I may have botched this too. I wasn't sure what to talk about, so I talked about how not bringing the claims together might lead to res judicata issues down the line. Eh.yost wrote:If it makes you feel better, my answer was super short. Basically: plaintiff can join as many claims as he has against defendant, regardless of whether or not they are related. There must also be PJ and SMJ with respect to both claims, which I believe there was. The end.nsv wrote:i know everyone wants to compare how they did but don't let it bring you down for tomorrow. MBEs are worth 50%, you can make a lot of loss ground tomorrow. i'm in the same boat as all of you, I still think i missed something on the first call of the civ pro question...and probably did.
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
I swear the CP problem was ridiculous..... got me completely off guard....nothing really fit into a category.... mostly talked about commingled funds and tracing
- RoccoPan
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:43 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Did you find out the answer to this?scubasteve2 wrote:when are we supposed to be there tomorrow? stranded in ontario at a hotel where everyone is taking the exam yet nobody is around
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2016 10:34 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
AcidaliaPlanitia wrote:Did anyone else mention on the Community Property essay that the attempted transfer from sole title to joint tenancy would have failed without a strawman, because joint tenancy requires unity of time?
wait I said the transfer of title into JT made was a collateral agreement to rebut the SP gift presumption since the condo was a gift to him during marriage
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 11:45 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
That's pretty much where I went with it too. Just mentioned after the fact that at common law you couldn't create a joint tenancy by having a husband transfer title to himself and his wife as joint tenants, because you need unity of time. I don't think it changes the analysis because I think "jointly titled" for the CP rules includes tenancy in common as well as joint tenancy.Sunny1211 wrote:AcidaliaPlanitia wrote:Did anyone else mention on the Community Property essay that the attempted transfer from sole title to joint tenancy would have failed without a strawman, because joint tenancy requires unity of time?
wait I said the transfer of title into JT made was a collateral agreement to rebut the SP gift presumption since the condo was a gift to him during marriage
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 3:36 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Admissions/Exa ... xaminationRoccoPan wrote:Did you find out the answer to this?scubasteve2 wrote:when are we supposed to be there tomorrow? stranded in ontario at a hotel where everyone is taking the exam yet nobody is around
8:20
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:24 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Yes, re: TIC. It didn't mention survivorship, so I didn't go that route, but I am sure that you will get a few points for discussing it.AcidaliaPlanitia wrote:That's pretty much where I went with it too. Just mentioned after the fact that at common law you couldn't create a joint tenancy by having a husband transfer title to himself and his wife as joint tenants, because you need unity of time. I don't think it changes the analysis because I think "jointly titled" for the CP rules includes tenancy in common as well as joint tenancy.Sunny1211 wrote:AcidaliaPlanitia wrote:Did anyone else mention on the Community Property essay that the attempted transfer from sole title to joint tenancy would have failed without a strawman, because joint tenancy requires unity of time?
wait I said the transfer of title into JT made was a collateral agreement to rebut the SP gift presumption since the condo was a gift to him during marriage
- elijah54594
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
hatethelaw wrote:Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........
Oh baby nooo! WHAT is you doing?!
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 531
- Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:18 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
I must be the only fucking idiot who missed that aggregation of marijuana sales near school answer. I put plenary power over DC instead because for some reason I kept thinking about that other case the S Ct said no aggregate (was it gun sale near schools? Or something). Fuck.
- Dee099
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:30 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
So CA decided to do 100 experimental questions I see.
-
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:58 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
That was definitely tougher than I expected
- CAnow
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:13 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
I think there were about five real ones in there. That's about how many of my answers I felt confident about.Dee099 wrote:So CA decided to do 100 experimental questions I see.
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!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Weird MPT and harder than usual MBE. I think I am f... Lol
-
- Posts: 712
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
Is that Lucas Anti Lucas shit ?Sunny1211 wrote:Also how did you guys analyze the transfer of Title of the condo into JT in the first question ?
I felt my analysis was super short each property
-
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 6:30 pm
Re: 2017 July California Bar
I assumed that lucas applied when title is taken jointly. figured it wouldn't if title was originally taken in only one spouses namemaxmartin wrote:Is that Lucas Anti Lucas shit ?Sunny1211 wrote:Also how did you guys analyze the transfer of Title of the condo into JT in the first question ?
I felt my analysis was super short each property
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:12 am
Re: 2017 July California Bar
I thought so too: Lucas comes into play when the purchase is made with SP of one spouse or with part SP and part CP. Hal inherited his condo.
I was generous and gave Hal his the condo and the increased value of that Condo as well. However, my first thought was about Lucas too.
Now all Wendys and Hals, the jury, negligent drivers and BFPs with non-recorded mortgages are burning in my personal hell.
I was generous and gave Hal his the condo and the increased value of that Condo as well. However, my first thought was about Lucas too.
Now all Wendys and Hals, the jury, negligent drivers and BFPs with non-recorded mortgages are burning in my personal hell.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login