Top Law Schools

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.

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?

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.

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 )

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.

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?

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.

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!

- 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?

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?

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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?