MBE Question Thread

User avatar
HungJuror
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby HungJuror » Thu Jun 15, 2017 7:18 pm

cnk1220 wrote:
HungJuror wrote:Please correct me if I'm wrong, but directed verdicts and judgment as a matter of law are the same thing, but JAML has replaced directed verdicts? Many questions I've come across in Barbri ask about directed verdicts (typically in torts questions). Does anyone know what we should expect to see on the bar itself? I'm in an UBE state (WA). I know as a matter of law it doesn't matter, but I'm curious to know what pass test takers have seen on the exam itself.



Yes they are the same thing, JMOL (formerly called directed verdict)- you'll come across the term JMOL (that's how it's abbreviated) on the exam.


Awesome, thanks!

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby ConfusedL1 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:41 am

Perpetuities question:

So is putting a condition without an end (e.g. "as long as there building is used as for church purposes") ALWAYS a violation of the rule against perpetuities unless it's accompanied by a reverter to the original owner/estate?

User avatar
Toubro
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby Toubro » Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:21 pm

ConfusedL1 wrote:Perpetuities question:

So is putting a condition without an end (e.g. "as long as there building is used as for church purposes") ALWAYS a violation of the rule against perpetuities unless it's accompanied by a reverter to the original owner/estate?


Whenever a determinable fee is created (as it is in your example), there is a possibility of reverter created by operation of law. It's automatic.

There also won't be a perpetuities issue, because the grantee's interest vests when the deed is executed so it doesn't violate the rule. It may be the case that the durational limitation is violated more than 21 years after the deed is executed, and therefore the grantor would once again own the land in fee simple more than 21 years after execution, but grantor's interests (reverters, reversions, or rights of entry) are never subject to the rule against perpetuities.

User avatar
WestWingWatcher
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby WestWingWatcher » Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:25 pm

Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Perpetuities question:

So is putting a condition without an end (e.g. "as long as there building is used as for church purposes") ALWAYS a violation of the rule against perpetuities unless it's accompanied by a reverter to the original owner/estate?


Whenever a determinable fee is created (as it is in your example), there is a possibility of reverter created by operation of law. It's automatic.

There also won't be a perpetuities issue, because the grantee's interest vests when the deed is executed so it doesn't violate the rule. It may be the case that the durational limitation is violated more than 21 years after the deed is executed, and therefore the grantor would once again own the land in fee simple more than 21 years after execution, but grantor's interests are never subject to the rule against perpetuities.


I don't know what 40% of the phrases in this explanation mean. Which might explain my 30% on the Property MPQ set I did this morning.

Are you guys using flashcards to memorize all these property terms, or am I just especially dense. (Please refrain from any & all iterations of "Why not both?" responses :lol: )

User avatar
Toubro
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby Toubro » Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:33 pm

WestWingWatcher wrote:
Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Perpetuities question:

So is putting a condition without an end (e.g. "as long as there building is used as for church purposes") ALWAYS a violation of the rule against perpetuities unless it's accompanied by a reverter to the original owner/estate?


Whenever a determinable fee is created (as it is in your example), there is a possibility of reverter created by operation of law. It's automatic.

There also won't be a perpetuities issue, because the grantee's interest vests when the deed is executed so it doesn't violate the rule. It may be the case that the durational limitation is violated more than 21 years after the deed is executed, and therefore the grantor would once again own the land in fee simple more than 21 years after execution, but grantor's interests are never subject to the rule against perpetuities.


I don't know what 40% of the phrases in this explanation mean. Which might explain my 30% on the Property MPQ set I did this morning.

Are you guys using flashcards to memorize all these property terms, or am I just especially dense. (Please refrain from any & all iterations of "Why not both?" responses :lol: )


Why not neither? Haha. Our property professor during 1L spent 60% of the semester on freehold estates and 35% on concurrent interests in land, and then rushed through takings, leaseholds, and recording statutes in a flash. So I'm familiar with the terms — which of course doesn't mean I always know how they work, but at the very least the words aren't intimidating lol.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby ConfusedL1 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 3:44 pm

Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Perpetuities question:

So is putting a condition without an end (e.g. "as long as there building is used as for church purposes") ALWAYS a violation of the rule against perpetuities unless it's accompanied by a reverter to the original owner/estate?


Whenever a determinable fee is created (as it is in your example), there is a possibility of reverter created by operation of law. It's automatic.

There also won't be a perpetuities issue, because the grantee's interest vests when the deed is executed so it doesn't violate the rule. It may be the case that the durational limitation is violated more than 21 years after the deed is executed, and therefore the grantor would once again own the land in fee simple more than 21 years after execution, but grantor's interests (reverters, reversions, or rights of entry) are never subject to the rule against perpetuities.


Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant to say: To Billy as long as the building is used as for church purposes, then to Jeff.

Jeff is a violation right? Because it might not get to him until over 21 years? But WITHOUT Jeff there's no problem perpetuity wise, right?

User avatar
Toubro
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby Toubro » Fri Jun 16, 2017 4:25 pm

ConfusedL1 wrote:
Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Perpetuities question:

So is putting a condition without an end (e.g. "as long as there building is used as for church purposes") ALWAYS a violation of the rule against perpetuities unless it's accompanied by a reverter to the original owner/estate?


Whenever a determinable fee is created (as it is in your example), there is a possibility of reverter created by operation of law. It's automatic.

There also won't be a perpetuities issue, because the grantee's interest vests when the deed is executed so it doesn't violate the rule. It may be the case that the durational limitation is violated more than 21 years after the deed is executed, and therefore the grantor would once again own the land in fee simple more than 21 years after execution, but grantor's interests (reverters, reversions, or rights of entry) are never subject to the rule against perpetuities.


Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant to say: To Billy as long as the building is used as for church purposes, then to Jeff.

Jeff is a violation right? Because it might not get to him until over 21 years? But WITHOUT Jeff there's no problem perpetuity wise, right?


If you mean "then to Jeff and his heirs," then yes, that's a violation. You'll strike that portion.

But if you mean "then to Jeff for life," then Jeff's shifting executory interest is valid. It will either vest or fail in Jeff's lifetime.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby ConfusedL1 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 4:53 pm

Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Perpetuities question:

So is putting a condition without an end (e.g. "as long as there building is used as for church purposes") ALWAYS a violation of the rule against perpetuities unless it's accompanied by a reverter to the original owner/estate?


Whenever a determinable fee is created (as it is in your example), there is a possibility of reverter created by operation of law. It's automatic.

There also won't be a perpetuities issue, because the grantee's interest vests when the deed is executed so it doesn't violate the rule. It may be the case that the durational limitation is violated more than 21 years after the deed is executed, and therefore the grantor would once again own the land in fee simple more than 21 years after execution, but grantor's interests (reverters, reversions, or rights of entry) are never subject to the rule against perpetuities.


Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant to say: To Billy as long as the building is used as for church purposes, then to Jeff.

Jeff is a violation right? Because it might not get to him until over 21 years? But WITHOUT Jeff there's no problem perpetuity wise, right?


If you mean "then to Jeff and his heirs," then yes, that's a violation. You'll strike that portion.

But if you mean "then to Jeff for life," then Jeff's shifting executory interest is valid. It will either vest or fail in Jeff's lifetime.


Could you explain the result that the rule is meant to avoid if Jeff's heirs are included? I get that the basis is that the lives must exist at the time that the conveyance is executed, but what would be the practical result?

User avatar
BulletTooth
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby BulletTooth » Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:30 pm

cnk1220 wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:OK Evidence question:

Corporation VP sued for embezzlement. Claims he didn't do it and that his salary was 75k last year.

P then calls a banker to show VP received $700,000 in deposits last year.
--------------------------------------

[+] Spoiler
Isn't the banker testimony allowed for impeachment purposes? Answer from prep says it should be allowed as circumstantial evidence and that impeachment isn't right because it would not serve to impeach VP testimony. I don't see how that's right. Huge deposits sure seem important to determining credibility, but maybe i'm missing something?



It's showing circumstantial evidence that the $700K doesn't match (and is much larger) than his salary of $75K, so it's more likely than not that the VP committed embezzlement. But to impeach VP in this example you'd need to show prior inconsistent statements, VP hasn't said anything that is inconsistent with his current testimony so the banker's testimony isn't going to impeach the VP, the banker's testimony is just serving as circumstantial evidence that the VP likely committed embezzlement and this is evidence for the fact-finder to consider- the VP could also have received the $700K from legal prize winnings, gift from family member, etc.

In other words- it's not impeachment because VP never said he didn't receive $700K in deposits last year- he's saying he didn't embezzle and his salary was only $75K, the fact that banker is testifying there was $700K in VP's bank account doesn't mean VP is lying in his testimony so you can't impeach him because there's no prior inconsistent statement to impeach VP with.

However, if VP had said "at no time last year did I ever have more than $75K in my bank account, I didn't embezzle from the corporation", then bringing Banker to show $700K in deposits in VP's bank account would impeach VP because it would serve a direct contradiction of VP's own prior words.

Hope that helps!


Also, even if you could use the Banker's testimony to impeach, the better answer would probably be that it is circumstantial evidence that he is guilty of embezzlement. Generally, the better answer would be that you can use the evidence as substantive proof of guilt, as opposed to the limited purpose of impeachment.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby ConfusedL1 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:17 pm

Ok Here are a couple more I've been having trouble with:

- Are any of the elements for an easement by prescription different from adverse possession?
- Can a person be subject to specific jurisdiction if they get in a car wreck in a state that is not there and no other contacts?

User avatar
de minimis
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:48 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby de minimis » Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:22 pm

- Are any of the elements for an easement by prescription different from adverse possession?


Essentially the same, but don't need exclusive possession for an easement by prescription.

- Can a person be subject to specific jurisdiction if they get in a car wreck in a state that is not there and no other contacts?


Yes. By choosing to drive in a state, a person has availed themselves of the benefits of the state and its foreseeable they could be sued there for any conduct arising from driving in the state.

User avatar
cnk1220
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby cnk1220 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:05 pm

ConfusedL1 wrote:Ok Here are a couple more I've been having trouble with:

- Are any of the elements for an easement by prescription different from adverse possession?
- Can a person be subject to specific jurisdiction if they get in a car wreck in a state that is not there and no other contacts?



Adding to your property Q (in addition to what the person above wrote too):
Adverse possession has the ownership element- remember if you are taking someone's property by AP you are getting ownership of the property.

But with an easement you don't get ownership, easements are mere use of the property

FormerChild
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:41 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby FormerChild » Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:14 pm

cnk1220 wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Ok Here are a couple more I've been having trouble with:

- Are any of the elements for an easement by prescription different from adverse possession?
- Can a person be subject to specific jurisdiction if they get in a car wreck in a state that is not there and no other contacts?



Adding to your property Q (in addition to what the person above wrote too):
Adverse possession has the ownership element- remember if you are taking someone's property by AP you are getting ownership of the property.

But with an easement you don't get ownership, easements are mere use of the property


Easement by prescription doesn't have to be exclusive, i.e., you and your friend could both cross a neighbors land for the statutory period of time and you could get an easement by prescription. In adverse possession, however, it has to be exclusive, i.e., if you and your friend both adversely possessed the property for the statutory period of time, the exclusive element would not be met.

User avatar
sam91
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:03 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby sam91 » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:08 pm

FormerChild wrote: Easement by prescription doesn't have to be exclusive, i.e., you and your friend could both cross a neighbors land for the statutory period of time and you could get an easement by prescription. In adverse possession, however, it has to be exclusive, i.e., if you and your friend both adversely possessed the property for the statutory period of time, the exclusive element would not be met.


I think the "exclusive" distinction is much more likely to manifest in a different context. I've seen in in multiple questions, but not with respect to you and your friend. More with respect to you and your neighbor.

For example, if there is a driveway on your neighbors property, and you and him BOTH use the driveway, but you do so without permission (hostile), you still have your prescriptive easement.

However, if you are claiming adverse possession over your neighbors house let's say, you're possession must be exclusive (ie. you cant live there with him or stay on monday, tuesday, friday, and he stays on all the other days)

[The whole idea of your friend using it poses a different issue. If he uses it thinking its yours, say as your guest, you'd still be exclusive in both contexts. Because friend is doing it with YOUR permission]

torilynn
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby torilynn » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:31 pm

While I am probably answering this question in my head while I am typing this.


If you have transactional immunity, is it sovereign specific? Can I have immunity from state prosecution but still be prosecuted federally?

User avatar
Toubro
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby Toubro » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:36 am

ConfusedL1 wrote:
Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Perpetuities question:

So is putting a condition without an end (e.g. "as long as there building is used as for church purposes") ALWAYS a violation of the rule against perpetuities unless it's accompanied by a reverter to the original owner/estate?


Whenever a determinable fee is created (as it is in your example), there is a possibility of reverter created by operation of law. It's automatic.

There also won't be a perpetuities issue, because the grantee's interest vests when the deed is executed so it doesn't violate the rule. It may be the case that the durational limitation is violated more than 21 years after the deed is executed, and therefore the grantor would once again own the land in fee simple more than 21 years after execution, but grantor's interests (reverters, reversions, or rights of entry) are never subject to the rule against perpetuities.


Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant to say: To Billy as long as the building is used as for church purposes, then to Jeff.

Jeff is a violation right? Because it might not get to him until over 21 years? But WITHOUT Jeff there's no problem perpetuity wise, right?


If you mean "then to Jeff and his heirs," then yes, that's a violation. You'll strike that portion.

But if you mean "then to Jeff for life," then Jeff's shifting executory interest is valid. It will either vest or fail in Jeff's lifetime.


Could you explain the result that the rule is meant to avoid if Jeff's heirs are included? I get that the basis is that the lives must exist at the time that the conveyance is executed, but what would be the practical result?


No I just mean that a complete conveyance would usually not say "to Jeff," it would either say "to Jeff and his heirs" (creating a fee simple absolute) or "to Jeff for life" (creating a life estate). Of course there are many other possibilities, but I was just noting that "to Jeff" seemed incomplete to me. I drew the distinction only to contrast it with the example in which Jeff receives a life estate, because then his interest would be valid.

User avatar
cnk1220
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby cnk1220 » Sat Jun 17, 2017 1:01 am

torilynn wrote:While I am probably answering this question in my head while I am typing this.


If you have transactional immunity, is it sovereign specific? Can I have immunity from state prosecution but still be prosecuted federally?



Yes.
Also prob worth noting but more than what you asked for- use and derivative use immunity is what you'll see on the mbe- usually the correct answer, actually pretty positive I came across this in a Q on the real exam- what you need to know: prosecutor need only provide use and deriv. use immunity (less broad) than transactional immunity to a witness.

defined:
use/deriv use-bars the government from using your testimony or anything derived from it to convict you
transactional- witness is protected from any transaction they testified about in protected testimony

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:42 am

Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Perpetuities question:

So is putting a condition without an end (e.g. "as long as there building is used as for church purposes") ALWAYS a violation of the rule against perpetuities unless it's accompanied by a reverter to the original owner/estate?


Whenever a determinable fee is created (as it is in your example), there is a possibility of reverter created by operation of law. It's automatic.

There also won't be a perpetuities issue, because the grantee's interest vests when the deed is executed so it doesn't violate the rule. It may be the case that the durational limitation is violated more than 21 years after the deed is executed, and therefore the grantor would once again own the land in fee simple more than 21 years after execution, but grantor's interests (reverters, reversions, or rights of entry) are never subject to the rule against perpetuities.


Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant to say: To Billy as long as the building is used as for church purposes, then to Jeff.

Jeff is a violation right? Because it might not get to him until over 21 years? But WITHOUT Jeff there's no problem perpetuity wise, right?


If you mean "then to Jeff and his heirs," then yes, that's a violation. You'll strike that portion.

But if you mean "then to Jeff for life," then Jeff's shifting executory interest is valid. It will either vest or fail in Jeff's lifetime.


Could you explain the result that the rule is meant to avoid if Jeff's heirs are included? I get that the basis is that the lives must exist at the time that the conveyance is executed, but what would be the practical result?


No I just mean that a complete conveyance would usually not say "to Jeff," it would either say "to Jeff and his heirs" (creating a fee simple absolute) or "to Jeff for life" (creating a life estate). Of course there are many other possibilities, but I was just noting that "to Jeff" seemed incomplete to me. I drew the distinction only to contrast it with the example in which Jeff receives a life estate, because then his interest would be valid.


No no thanks I got that. I meant that the reason the perpetuities issue exists if "heirs" are included is because the property may not vest until 21 years after Jeff's life because we don't know who the heirs are?

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:30 pm

Another q re evidence:

Guy gets serious injury (a laceration) by another guy, says: "man I feel bad about this, here's $500"

That statement is totally fair game because he didn´t say the magic words of "for your medical expenses," right?

User avatar
cnk1220
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby cnk1220 » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:51 pm

ConfusedL1 wrote:Another q re evidence:

Guy gets serious injury (a laceration) by another guy, says: "man I feel bad about this, here's $500"

That statement is totally fair game because he didn´t say the magic words of "for your medical expenses," right?


The entire statement is admissible under the hearsay exception- party opponent statement.
because 1) there's no indication of any claim so it's not an offer to settle and 2) the money isn't for medical expenses.

Something to note- a statement of liability accompanied by an offer to pay medical expenses is severable. In other words, someone says: "I cut your face, heres $500 for your medical bills." The "I cut your face" part of that statement is admissible under the party opponent rule 801(d)(2)(a) but the "heres $500 for your medical bills" is inadmissible because of public policy.

User avatar
TheWalrus
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby TheWalrus » Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:54 pm

After the defendant has invoked his right to remain silent, how long must the cops wait to fulfill the "scrupulously honoring of the request" and re-initiating questioning?

User avatar
Toubro
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby Toubro » Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:17 am

ConfusedL1 wrote:
No no thanks I got that. I meant that the reason the perpetuities issue exists if "heirs" are included is because the property may not vest until 21 years after Jeff's life because we don't know who the heirs are?


Kind of. Even if we knew who they were, the idea is that they could take more than 21 years after a measuring life.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:45 am

TheWalrus wrote:After the defendant has invoked his right to remain silent, how long must the cops wait to fulfill the "scrupulously honoring of the request" and re-initiating questioning?


I think this is a reasonableness test, so it's hard to answer. The only time I've seen it in a question it was clear it was the next day.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:34 am

Property:

Real covenant. Every element for the burden to run for two parties is met, EXCEPT for notice bc neither party records their deed. Years later after land conveyed several times, one party with who is a BFP finds a copy of the deed. The other land was passed by inheritance

In the above, the party who found the deed gets the land even without notice because "the requirement of notice is a function of the recording statute." Is that right? So, because one burdened party without notice was not a BFP, but a donee, they are held to the covenant.

User avatar
TheWalrus
Posts: 1050
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: MBE Question Thread

Postby TheWalrus » Sun Jun 18, 2017 3:36 pm

I'm confused about accommodations for contract and the remedies. If anyone could help, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests