First ... to say I hope the fail rate is up to keep the ranks thin in this weak economy

First to say...Wow, I think I failed day one of the NY Bar.

Delaware's conlaw essay was BRUTAL yesterday.

2 days down, one to go.

Subpoena duces tecum? Those NY multiple choice really come out of nowhere.

Client Williams had One or Two causes for a Fraud Action?

NY Essays threw a couple screwballs (anybody know if a criminal defendant can talk to his attorney during an adjournment while he is on the stand?). But mostly it was simple stuff, so so I thought. Then again, maybe it was really complicated stuff and I failed. Who can say?

#7, it is unconstitutional based on the 6th amendment if it is overnight. Had the break been for lunch or a brief break then it would have been ok

#6 I said that Williams had 2: the guarantee and the transmission was going to fail soon

I think Williams had two causes of action. No good for the "I guarantee it." (No evidence of a present intent). And no good for the "Extra cooler" because Williams didn't rely on it. The other two were good.

Now allow me to officially purge this from my memory.

Ugh - I probably would have done better had I not almost passed out from the pure pressure of the situation.

#1) "Dodge says there is be a problem." - No Reliance. No Damage.
#2) "your transmission is going to fail" - OBVIOUS
#3) "it be good if we did some washer fluid too." - opinion and no reliance
#4) "I guarantee the job!" - maybe? but where is the damage?

i spent so many hours studying com paper and sec trans, starting from scratch with no knowledge.

and they were not tested. BASTARDS.

11...there's always next year

#1) reliance was that he relied on the statement in deciding to buy a new transmission. Damage was the cost of the new transmission.

I don't know ANYTHING about durable powers of attorney.

11: i got the same thign and so did my friend.

do you guys know what fraud is? lying that dodge put out a notification to induce you to get your car fixed when that is NOT TRUE = fraud. silly. damages = paying an insane amount of money to get stuff fixed that's not broken.

14, after hearing the statement, he told them not to do anything with the transmission. They did it anyway. You can't say that he relied on it when they didn't do what he asked.

duces tekum? WTF. durable power: WTF? lien on van goughs? maybe i should have paid attention to paula a little more.

does anyone know what a durable power of attorney is? Or am I the only one who made up the law for that.....

19: i made up the law too... i just looked it up. power of atty creates an agency relationship. durable power means it lasts through death. husband was wife's agent.

12, secured transactions was tested (as part of one essay mostly dealing w/wills). See you in February!

ps 17 - i think that is a fine argument. i also think it's a fine argument to say even though they did it without permission, he didn't make them stop and believed there was a problem etc.

also note - probably doesn't matter whta conclusion you came to. what matters is if you wrote MEMORANDUM at the top :-P

21 - how do you even know what bar was being discussed? not everyone is in NY/Cal.

The dodge memo could still have been a contributing fact to the decision to replace the transmission, even if #2 turned out to be a bigger/the only factor.

Don't forget that you're presenting viable claims, not just picking stone-cold locks.

I hope your "causes of action" had sufficient specificity in discussing the fraud.

#17

Yep, reasonable argument...but not what the question asked.

Does a secured interest survive a charitable gift?

Study at all tonight for MBE or no?

I got everything right on the NY bar today. I am not even showing up tomorrow... don't need to. I am going golfing in Westchester. Later suckers!

#21 Comm paper tested in IL

27: have a beverage. a tasty one.

I didn't know shit about the durable power of attorney so I just said it meant he had the power to sell the TIE. Who the hell knows though. Nobody's going to get that one right.

Anyone know what to do if Examsoft won't let you upload your files?

32: kill self

the guarantee had no intent to deceive -- if dude knew it was a false guarantee, what did he expect williams to come back to the store after seeing "no guarantee" on the receipt and be all amped to buy some more useless shit? Plus no reliance on the guarantee because he never actually went back to the shop.

but I covered my ass and did an "but assuming it" paragraph.

Williams had 3 possible fraud claims. . . statements 1, 2, and . . . 5. When Biggs told Williams it would take 3 days to rebuild his tranny, that was fraud-- it induced him to spend more money to get the one from A-1 stock, which turned out to be his own.

Just because it wasn't in the memo prompt doesn't mean he didn't have a cause of action on it ;-)

27: No, why not just spend the entire night arguing about the Day 1 essays here on ATL like these other people? Seriously, its in the past and if anyone spends even 10 minutes arguing with a stranger online about an essay question the night before the MBE, he/she is a complete lame-ass.

And no, don't really bother to study tonight. You're brain is shot and would do well to have some down-time. Review for 30 minutes in the morning to warm up.

Sincerely,

Passed 2007 NY Bar with 170+ MBE

um, guys, he paid for the work before the shop said there was a guarantee. Shop had money already - no reliance.

My upload failed five times before finally now saying it was successful. Hopefully it's ok now. There is no way to actually see your answers to make sure that it actually uploaded what you wrote?

#36 - you deserve a cupcake for your sage wisdom and your golden score

37 -- exactly

he was walking out the door, no intent to induce reliance. just placating a pissed off customer

anyways, I knew what durable POA was, but wasnt sure it defeated tenancy by the entirety, especially when the POA was broad (re "real estate transactions")

#5, please, subpoena duces tecum was expalined quite thoroughly in both my ny practice class and the NY practice section of the large Barbri NY book. Also it even showed up in a couple of MBE questions.

#7, yes of COURSE it violates his constitutional 6th Amend right to a lawyer..it was a supreme court case (and also a crim pro PMBR practice ques that i spent a long time reviewing)

stop arguing about fake law. learn real law. the MPT is fake law. stop talking about it. have a beer. chill out. Whatever you argued, as long as it was a viable argument, your fine. leave each other alone! Its not law school, everyone should want everyone to pass. YOU DONT NEED TO GET AN A!!!! Bad karma. Good luck tmmra everyone... chill out.

oh, and does the child of an adopted-out child take an otherwise lapsed gift?

Maryland morning was fine. Got a little screwy in the afternoon. And no specific civ pro Q... weird. All and all, nothign earth-shattering (sorry California kids, had to do it)

I think you guys missed the case where the whole point was to provide an exception to the general rule for the warranty statement.

Maryland morning was fine. Got a little screwy in the afternoon. And no specific civ pro Q... weird. All and all, nothign earth-shattering (sorry California kids, had to do it)

Delaware's Federal/Chancery Civ Pro question was ridiculous too...

who's going to the bar orgy tonight

Fuck the MPT. Anyone out there thrown off by the topics tested by Delaware? No torts? Crazy civ pro? Wills? An incredibly long criminal law question with an unseen format? Widener did a terrible job of preparing us; I can only imagine how poorly their own students were prepared.
Con law and corporations were easy at least.

I think you guys missed the case where the whole point was to provide an exception to the general rule for the warranty statement.

what about the torts/property question?

Fuck the MPT. Anyone out there thrown off by the topics tested by Delaware? No torts? Crazy civ pro? Wills? An incredibly long criminal law question with an unseen format? Widener did a terrible job of preparing us; I can only imagine how poorly their own students were prepared.
At least con law, contracts, property, evidence and corporations were easy.

What time did the NY bar end today?

36: nothing is more lame ass than bragging about your bar score, or frankly even discussing it. when i was a newbie associate i shared an office with a guy who called everyone he knew to ask what their score was after results came out. totally lame ass (tacky really).

I think the banks did beat the museum because the museum wasnt a buyer (ordinary or non-ordinary course), so dont pay value then no priority on the van gogh. otherwise any dumbshit with encumbered property could just give it away to someone without notice just to fuck over a creditor. anybody?

Marin hands down....Alex was a big dissapointment and.... oh, sorry. Thought this site was done with real stories.

Go Marin!

if the ny essay graders are anything like Barbri's then I'm done for

54: I'm pointing out my MBE score solely to show that I have some (yes, very very tiny I know) credibility for giving bar exam advice although hey, how can you even really believe what I anonymously say?

And seriously, I can never understand people who brag online anonymously. You want to be admired by...those who don't even know its you? I don't get it.

I'm mainly curious as to what hour these people will debate Day 1 essay questions rather than go take a rest or get some sleep. I guess it'll go on until sleep time in CA.

54: I'm pointing out my MBE score solely to show that I have some (yes, very very tiny I know) credibility for giving bar exam advice although hey, how can you even really believe what I anonymously say?

And seriously, I can never understand people who brag online anonymously. You want to be admired by...those who don't even know its you? I don't get it.

I'm mainly curious as to what hour these people will debate Day 1 essay questions rather than go take a rest or get some sleep. I guess it'll go on until sleep time in CA.

36

sh*t, the bar was today?

I wouldn't be surprised if I failed, but I also wouldn't be surprised if I passed. Anyone else feel the same way after Day 1?

51: I went on about duties of LLs and Ts to repair the premises. Said LLs has duty to repair common areas but T no. Thus give the LL the JMOL and the T no. JMHO.

TTYL.

it's all about feeling good for the next few months. if sharing war stories here puts your mind at ease (which it does for me), then keep talking

55- I'm with you.

hey 62, you mean it the other way around right? LL gets his JMOL denied but grant T's???

The real question is, as an out-of-stater somehow assigned to Buffalo instead of Albany, where is the best place to get wings?!

65: Yes - I was mistaken and you are correct.

I talked about LL/T duties too but forgot to write about causation and damages.

but I nailed the tranny

How about some horror stories....people crying or vomiting, showing up late, computer crash, etc.

#66 go to Duffs..its close to the testing site...on the corner of sheridan road and millersport highway

MANY OF YOU ARE GOING TO FAIL.

Wow, can't believe I survived the first day of the NY bar.

Did anyone else think that 4th Amendment essay was really hard?

Maryland put a Corps extract in there to FUCK all of us that actually knew corp law and then give the crutch to everyone that didn't thanks MD! Also Md basically wrote the exam with the Barbri distinctions section open, I think they were just DARING all the barbri kids with the exam, you won't remember every little distinction will you Barbri kids? Whatever. And then they had the audacity to test civ pro in the guise of an appeal of a restraining order??? WTF GOIEHRWIOERNONWEORNEWIORNOWENROWENROWE

is that a joke 72??

46: MD - the family law question was 1/2 civ pro - subject matter jurisdiction.

The afternoon was absurd.

I thought the issue was whether the officer could have PC based on other officers' knowledge. I didnt talk about Fourth Amendment. anyone??

In IL, at the Wyndham, they made everyone wearing sandals and flip flops to take them off and pile them up in the front of the room. They took the exam barefoot.

70- Sold!

How about that huge first amendment essay on the NY Bar -- killer stuff. I totally nailed it.

66 - The Rogers Centre, in Toronto, so you can see Doc throw another CG tonight.

god lat your servers suck

Was there a typo in the files section of the MPT? One of the cases they gave us (it was the fraud/auto mechanic problem) had a case from the 1970s, but the case itself sited to authorities from the 2000s. Nice to see they proof their work. And these are the people grading us?

I just wrote about what I think prurient means. I went into some detail

76 - umm there was a 4th amendment issue involving the seizure of the gas can...

Did anyone find it funny that in a question where they asked you if the will was valid, they named the decedent "Testator", and in a question asking whether there was an easement, they named the two parties "Dom" and "Serv"?

82, I noticed that too. The 1979 case cited a 1986 case (and others probably too). Once I saw that I stopped what I was doing and just wrote about that for an hour.

my favorite was when the proctor answered her cell phone. nice of her to tell the guy she couldn't talk right now.

and writing about agency is such a drag.

issues from the test:

Essay 2:
evidence-- was it an excited utterance?
Can a judge order a defendant on the stand to not talk to lawyer over the weekend?

Essay 3:
Partnership: partners owe duty of care / duty of loyalty to stay within scope of business

Essay 4:
Adopted out kid is not "issue" for anti lapse purposes

Essay 5
Adultery is defense to abandonment divorce claim
Power of Attorney issue

84, but the question asked about whether the officer could have PC without personal knowledge, not whether with PC he had a right to take the gas can

I dunno, that's how I saw it

Museum takes same status as Donee so still has to pay the banks, Bank B wins over Bank A because though both attached Bank B perfected first

76-

72 here. And no that was not a joke?

Was there not a 4A question?

Museum takes same status as Donee so still has to pay the banks, Bank B wins over Bank A because though both attached Bank B perfected first

Mr. 88 --

I think you got it wrong with the adopted out kid. My notes say there is a COA cases saying that if the adopted out kid is specifically named in the will then his issue will take under anti-lapse,

89 - I thought they wanted to know both about the probable cause for the arrest, and whether the seizure of the gas can was constitutional (incident to lawful arrest? maybe plain view?), but who knows...

90 -- that's what I got, though I think you mean "donor"

So was there a fucking 4th Amend issue or no??

Do we get to vote these writers off one at a time like The Next Food Network Star?

Arnie: We are going to have to say good-bye.

4 -- I thought the Delaware Con Law question was easy. Then again, I read FAIR v. Rumsfeld last week...

Essay 2 - I think they wanted you to talk about that the 6th amendment confrontation clause applies only when the statement is testimonial and that it wasn't because it was an emergency inquiry so he hada no right to confront and then discuss whether you could get it in under excited utterance or present sense impression

That party-wall essay from the NY was KILLER!

well if he has PC then the automobile exception takes care of everything. But I dont think they were asking about that. WHo knows

Did anybody think that "Finisher" could re-tender that check to the Law Firm and avoid the accord and satisfaction? I vaguely remembered that being mentioned as a recent change in the law from some lecture, but I am far too lazy to look it up.

55 - you're right, the museum was not a "holder" (CMR) or BIOC/NOCie (franzese) because no consideration & also record notice bc banks perfected

uh, 100, you know that the automobile exception is modified in NY, right?

Illinois's state essays=cake walk

Mulit-state essays=not so much. Commercial paper, eh. First Amendment and trespass...whaa? Partnership interest can be taken if a partner defaults on a personal loan...who knows...maybe? One essay just about damages...no idea what went on there. and im too fried to remember the others

I think you had to talk about PC to arrest and tehn whether in light of that the seizure of the gas can was appropriate because the gas can was part of the motion to suppress. I think you could have argued search incident to arrest, auto exception or even maybe plain view.

What were they asking w.r.t. the Bookkeeper and Officer question?

there was a museum? i thought she left the van goh to bob?

107 -- ademption applies to bob's bequest because she gave it to museum before she died

107 are you joking or serious? Decedent gave the painting to the museum as a gift before she died.

Fourth Amendment?

I am glad I studied corporations and criminal law. Barbri's pick as the two most frequently tested subjects likely to come up on the exam--guess nobody really knows--I won't hold it against them.

93 -- you're right. Matter of Smythe, 64 Misc. 2d 440 (Surrogates Ct. 1970)

Some random people were videotaping us leaving the Javitz Center in NYC today. Hilarious. It wasn't a news crew, so that means it was most likely someone's proud parents. I mean, really, you guys? Exiting the dungeon-like Javitz basement is not exactly video-worthy...

(Also, locking off half of the women's room during the lunch break and then starting the afternoon session with 50 - 100 people still in line sucked.)

is adultery a defense to an abandonment divorce claim?

Yes, because it makes it justified

can't use abandonment as grounds if it wasnt "without justification," so I wrote that him sleeping around was justification

fuck i totally missed that she gave the painting to the museum (and thus didn't talk about ademption)

essay 1 - i thought he either had PC to stop or in the alternative could stop as a Terry stop for a car so he was there lawfully then saw the gas can in plain view and with the gas can and the other info had PC to arrest - except the illegality of a gas can is not immediately apparent

Can we get a poll: who wrote about the gas can as 4th A? I swear it just asked whether he can have PC based on what he heard over the wire

Could Jill, the adopted child of Ann, take as Ann's "issue" under Testator's will? That was the subject a practice MPT from like, 1998. Wish I could've cited Franklin law in my answer. :-(

117--don't sweat it--that was a small point. You aren't going to fail the bar exam because of it.

93 - same for adopted out

94 - I talked about 4th for incident to arrest and plain view

Man I didn't have that adopted out issue for anti-lapse in any of my notes. Did that Erica Fine discuss that issue?
Well, if argued fully the other way, what do you lose? A whole point? 1/2? 1/3?

HOW ABOUT THAT PARTY WALL ESSAY?!!!!

Thing is, just to pull over the car he had to have PC, which was from what he heard over the radio. Otherwise he couldn't have even pulled it over to get to the stage of plain view, etc.

so did anyone see NY practice? prof responsibility? corporations? trusts?

88: um, I think it was a present sense impression not an excited utterance- the guard seemed kinda bored...to be like, flipping his shizz !!!!!!

i wrote about the gas can, but the call of the question was legality of the arrest of Bookkeeper, so i think the gas can was one of those "it should be noted" jobs, worth maybe a point.

as for "i guarantee it" in the MPT, my view was it was a promise made w/ no intent at the time to live up to it, so it was material and intended to deceive, but there was no reliance b/c chump was pulling out of the lot at that point.

One of the proctors told me that if you didn't discuss Ademption, you would FAIL!

the def was challenging PC because officer didnt have personal knowledge. I dont think that has anything to do with whether he can seize can or search car. he wouldnt even be all up in hte bookkeeper's shit unless he already had PC from the radio.

fuck I hope I didnt totally miss a fourth amend question.

i just put down both PSI and EU....but didnt have a clue about testimonial

It 100% asked about the gas can being suppressed and a 4th amendment analysis was needed.

Also, I thought he couldn't even bring the abandonment claim because it had only been 9 months and you need a year? I thought that's why it was two parts, saying, assuming... because he had no right to bring it in the first place and then you had to talk about the adultery.

That said, there was a girl who could barely speak English near me so I am sure everyone is completely fine.

My problem was to guess WTF was an estranged child. I guessed it was a non-marital child, it seems I'm not too far from the point.

125 - thats why that Q was such a pain in the ass to write

118

i think there was too much of a delay for present sense impression. He had to call the police and then wait for a detective to show up.
But the facts had the word "exclaimed" before the statement, and he still could have been in an excited state describing the recent events, so that goes to excited utterance.
I don't know

130,

There definitely was a 4th Amendment question.

it asked about suppressing the evidence because cop didnt have personal knowledge, which he doesnt need because cops can pool their knowledge

dude, cops have PC if they get a tip over the bulletin from another cop. if not, how would they ever operate?

An arrest is a seizure in NY; therefore the 4th amendment comes in play, and probable cause is required in for the arrest to reasonable. Also, no warrant is needed to arrest in public because the officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect committed a felony (the bulletin is sufficient).

I cannot believe you bar takers are on this site instead of geting drunk before going to bed early.

abandonment is 12 months min, this said 9 months for divorce

What was the call of the gas can question?

The motion on the second issue of the second issue was based solely on the confrontation clause...not hearsay. Testimonial v. non-testimonial issue.

I aced the secured transactions essay!! feeling good about it going into tomorrow!! Yay for a Harvard legal education

Didn't it clearly asked about right of confrontation ? And the fact that prior identifying statements are hearsay exception only for trial witnesses ? I never thought about excited utterance or present sense.

IL: MEE, 6th question, WHAT the hell was that?! Despite learning the HDC rule such that I'll never forget it, I elected against writing about it (it just did NOT seem to apply). Then, with 10 seconds left, I thought it wouldn't hurt to write out the rule, but would hurt if I did not. Unfortunately, all I managed to write was " negotial...aoljdljalfjagj."

Did everyone in IL write about the HDC rule? I'm about ready to defenestrate my anti-Spak ass.

even non-testimonial shit gets kept out if no hearsay exception applies

I think the hearsay rule kept it out, but no the CC because it wasnt testimonial

I second 140. I made up half the law on the essays and still passed. I'm not bragging, just pointing out that the bar for passing is not as high as one might imagine. It's over - have a glass of wine, eat your favorite food and go to bed.

to make the stop all the police needed was reasonable suspicion but then probable cause for the arrest/search

examsoft keeps shooting down my upload attempts. i think it's like that commercial where the mom keep trying to light her cig and the match keeps going out and it pans down and she's pregnant and it says "maybe someone is trying to tell you something." examsoft is trying to tell me i missed the gas can and my answers are crap.

Since I don't feel like wading through 123 comments, I'll just say that a durable POA is basic agency law.

Like any agency, the POA terminates at the principal's death."Durable" simply means that it survives the principal's incapacity -- in many states, the default rule is that the power terminates, so if you want it to be durable, you actually have to state it.

Also, like any agency, the agent under a POA only has those powers that are specifically delegated or necessarily implied. But if the power is granted, then the agent can exercise that power to the same extent the principal could (unless the exercise is expressly limited by the terms of the POA itself).

If under state law the principal could transfer an interest in TBE real property (and thereby convert the TBE into TIC), then the agent can do so as well so long as the POA is sufficiently specific to give him the power to transfer real estate.

However, also consider for extra bonus points that the agent owes a fiduciary duty to the principal. The agent may act only in the principal's best interest. So, depending on the facts, even if the agent *has* the power, he may still not exercise it.

Since I don't feel like wading through 123 comments, I'll just say that a durable POA is basic agency law.

Like any agency, the POA terminates at the principal's death. "Durable" simply means that it survives the principal's incapacity -- in many states, the default rule is that the power terminates, so if you want it to be durable, you actually have to state it.

Also, like any agency, the agent under a POA only has those powers that are specifically delegated or necessarily implied. But if the power is granted, then the agent can exercise that power to the same extent the principal could (unless the exercise is expressly limited by the terms of the POA itself).

If under state law the principal could transfer an interest in TBE real property (and thereby convert the TBE into TIC), then the agent can do so as well so long as the POA is sufficiently specific to give him the power to transfer real estate.

However, also consider for extra bonus points that the agent owes a fiduciary duty to the principal. The agent may act only in the principal's best interest. So, depending on the facts, even if the agent *has* the power, he may still not exercise it.

FYI for all those with the wrong answers on here. The adopted out child's issue IS included in anti-lapse protection because he was specifically mentioned in the will - this was a recent NY Court of Appeals case that made this exception clear that Fine pointed out in the Wills lecture was RIPE for testing ...go Erica!!!!!

@ 146 - what was the com paper essay about? i'm in another MEE state and we didn't have sec trans or com paper. lots of studying for nothing.

96: More Top Chef Style

Please pack your laptops, and go.

I thought they wanted you to say that you can arrest someone without a warrant as long as you have PC that a felony was committed and that peresonal knowledge wasn't necessary but it was reeally an issue of the facts - like there was no description of the suspect whatsoever but obviously the car was sufficiently described - so you could argue enough based on that for a Terry Stop and then coupled with the gas can easily enough corroborrating evidence for warrantless arrest because enough probable cause

also, the motion to suppress definitely addressed the gas can

Secured Fucking Transactions!!! Fuck you New York! See you guys in February!

I'm still impressed by that dog's sack from an earlier post today.

146, the second part of that question made absolutely no sense to me either. I just talked about agency law, then decided, like you, to randomly write in the HDC rule at the end. I learned that thing, there was no way I was finishing out the exam without putting it somewhere.

146, the second part of that question made absolutely no sense to me either. I just talked about agency law, then decided, like you, to randomly write in the HDC rule at the end. I learned that thing, there was no way I was finishing out the exam without putting it somewhere.

Examsoft is fubar. Can't upload. Customer Service helpline shunts to a mailbox that, surprise, is full.

Honest Q: How could the first amendment ever preclude liability for trespass? Thanks in advance.

Silly #52, don't blame Widener. The DE bar examiners intentionally test on stuff that isn't taught in the bar review class; no lecturer can overcome that. Funny state it is, with its desire to keep the bar so small.

so if you miss a big issue are you screwed? I'm scared

My only comment is that the years in the case law on the MPT were all screwed up. The 1979 case was citing 2004 opinions, etc. This was really annoying, and poor drafting on the part of the bar examiners.

@ 162 - all i said was press people don't have anymore rights than anyone else just for being press members, and so if they break laws they can't publish what they discover by breaking in and they're not excused just because of 1st amendment press protection.

?!?!

seriously that was a bizarre question.

#146, #154. MEE Q6 pt. 1 one accord and satisfaction. Pt 2 was HDC - If checkcasher was HDC

Day 1 of Georgia went pretty well. The MPTs were a cakewalk. Essays were 1) business entities, 2) federal civ pro, 3) contracts (parol evidence/warranties), and 4) an entire professional responsibility question. Usually prof resp is just a sub question, but this year it was the an entire essay and, thus, a gift.

Wireless didn't work at all so people were having trouble uploading examsoft answers.

Nothing exciting like vomit or suicide.

Ya but the motion was specifically about the confrontation clause not hearsay...if the prompt simply asks you whether it's admissible then you discuss both but the prompt specifically stated that they only objected on grounds of confrontation not hearsay

@ 167 - thanks, i was really afraid i had just missed it, bc we didnt have like, most of the non-mbe questions. 3 or each actually.

but i think i would have noticed that hehe.

I can't believe you butthurt losers are Monday Morning QBing the exam on this website--only adding to your stress.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sucks to be all of you.

Sincerely,

Member of the Bar

NY Bar exam gripes:

1) the fact that I wasted a ton of time studying Corps, NY Practice, and NY Crim Law
2) the incredibly loud yet impossible to understand loudspeaker
3) the green wristband that I am not allowed to take off until tomorrow
4) the proctors not knowing anything

Positives:
I chose not to study commercial paper or professional responsibility

165 - why did you lose time finding out stuff like that, all that matters in MPT is the law you can pull out, not to analyze caselaw developments through ages. I did not not look at the dates of cited cases, just the 3 main in the unlikely possibility they would throw in a change in the law. Which they obviously did not.

Yeah, but you had to talk about how to get it into the trial - first talk about confrontation clause, then about the exception.

I do agree with you though. I focused more on the CC issue and that it wans't testimonial but I said the present sense and excited utterance stuff too. I felt like they wanted you to talk about the present sense stuff becuase the guy was unavailable and you needed corroboration and because it's a NY distiction.

167 - pretty sure the re-tender avoided it being an accord and satisfaction

Good lord. Enough already. The exams are turned in. Tomorrow’s another day. Miler Time!

poll: how many of you peeps saw the crawford confrontation clause issue on the CrimPro/Evid essay... don’t lie!

Did a appl. advocacy class 2L - wrote and argued crawford A- in the class, saw it today and i almost started laughing... too ezay - that is if you spent half a semester studying it and perfecting an appellate brief!!

good luck on MBE tomorrow

North Dakota essay #4, article 9 Guessing that South Dakota will not test it. I'm taking both. They have to coordinate, right?

I've got to race from Bismarck to Pierre tomorrow night. I recorded a digital file of South Dakota distinctions that I will play through the MP3 player on my tractor.

I agree with 101. First half of the day for IL was easy. The second half I would like to forget. What was with con and torts law question.

NY - wills/secured transactions - I heard people talking baout how museum could have taken under the shelter rule because testator was a BFP and museum could take shelter even though they were a donee. Yes NO? I hope not - i though about the rule and was like no - but seems likely - oh well. at least i didnt study corporations or ny professional responsibility....on the otherhand I may have to for february

lol 150...

NY - wills/secured transactions - I heard people talking baout how museum could have taken under the shelter rule because testator was a BFP and museum could take shelter even though they were a donee. Yes NO? I hope not - i though about the rule and was like no - but seems likely - oh well. at least i didnt study corporations or ny professional responsibility....on the otherhand I may have to for february

162: first amendment wouldn't preclude liability for trespass. i think they wanted you to talk briefly about the first amendment and point out that freedom of the press does not give reporters a right to break generally applicable laws or commit tortious acts.

167: HDC was part of Q. 6 Pt. 2, but I think there was more to it because CN was not holder when asked to repay. I think there were issues of warranty of presentment and properly payable. Of course, I ran out of time, and had to just make some stuff up in the two minutes I had. Maybe I'll get a point or two.

175 - wow, thats a pretty narrow exception to test. Odds that most people got that issue? I'll bet less than 30%.

177 - Did not catch the Confrontation Clause issue, just wrote about excited utterance. :|

Not a huge deal, I guess.

I can't believe I spent so much time on NY Practice and Corporations!

Has anyone had problems after trying to manually upload exam answers? I've been on hold with Exam Soft for the past hour along with I presume at least 500 of my closest friends. If anyone has had difficulty getting confirmation of upload of an afternoon essay set on the website, I'd greatly appreciate anything anyone has heard from Exam Soft.

lol 178...

lol 178...

im in the same position 186...what # are you dialing? i only was able to upload the 1st half regularly, and im not getting confirmation from manual upload

186-- have you not gotten any confirmation email? It should upload automatically basically the second you get internet access. Did you get the AM essay through but not the PM essay? I think mine uploaded the PM essay first and AM second

185 - I'm happy I studied all the subjects that did not show up. yesterday I slept easily because I was confident and today I was ready to find stupid secured transaction issues.

Tons of people with this problem. They won't answer the phone. My gf is freaking the fuck out. How could they not have enough support people after all the shit last year?

what exactly is the problem? can't confirmation email?

IL question: what was up with the property question on the MEE, about tenancy? What type of lease was that? It seemed to violate the statute of frauds so I couldn't figure it out.

Mine wouldn't upload at first because they disabled something on my computer when I had problems during the exam. Is everything enabled on your computers? Sorry, might be a dumb response but that worked for me.

As for the Van Gogh painting, how could the donee take shelter? The shelter rule says you step into the shoes of the person you got it from - here that was the person giving the security interest. Common sense points to not possible - you can't mortgage the shit out of your property and then give it away and say too bad.

wow that sounds like a nightmare you guys...

not very cool of them not to mention that we were going to have to have internet access after the exam (i.e. that we couldn't upload immediately on the spot). Wasn't that important? Anyway, they have the usbs.

Yea I had no idea on the property questioned. I argued in the alternative on that one.

Seriously - i came on here for something mindless to do after the first day and cannot BELIEVE that ya'll are on here rehashing the essays. Are you insane? Did you learn ANYTHING from law school exams. It's pointless. Someone could have written a totally "correct" argument in an incoherent garbled mess in their bluebook and receive a lower score than someone who wrote a well-organized "incorrect" answer.

It's easy to type a great answer on ATL in the hotel room, there is no time pressure, no heart palpitations, and no actual test anxiety.

Who the hell cares now. It's over til tomorrow. Shut up and wait for results....or talk about something other than the actual substance. This is unreal and really stupid.

Seriously - i came on here for something mindless to do after the first day and cannot BELIEVE that ya'll are on here rehashing the essays. Are you insane? Did you learn ANYTHING from law school exams. It's pointless. Someone could have written a totally "correct" argument in an incoherent garbled mess in their bluebook and receive a lower score than someone who wrote a well-organized "incorrect" answer.

It's easy to type a great answer on ATL in the hotel room, there is no time pressure, no heart palpitations, and no actual test anxiety.

Who the hell cares now. It's over til tomorrow. Shut up and wait for results....or talk about something other than the actual substance. This is unreal and really stupid.

190-- AM uploaded fine. I got email confirmation and it shows up on the webpage. It doesn't show PM having uploaded though. It failed during the auto-upload (and subsequent tries). This could be due to the crappy pay per hour hotel wireless I'm on. Regardless, I've uploaded the PM a solid dozen times through the manual site, but have not been able to get confirmation of an upload. It sounds like others are having similar troubles? If I do get through to Exam Soft, I'll post whatever info they provide.

194 - I guessed and said it defaults to a periodic month to month tenancy, because that was when they were paying/accepting rent.

someone break down each of the NY essays:

seriously what was up with the partnership question

What was up with the easement question in property - does wife have a claim against Serv?

153-the question didn't fall within the anti-lapse exception for the issue of adopted out children since the child was adopted out prior to the execution of the will, not after the execution of the will

198 ====> []
It's just good to read key words here, to know I didn't make up all the issues.

203 -- the key was that the adopted out kid was specifically named in the will. end of story.

The AM/PM upload thing happened to me. I didn't realize there was an examsoft # to call after 5:30. I freaked out for a while and it finally went through.

194, when a lease for more than one year is not in writing (thus violating SOF), a periodic tenancy results. The issue is what sort of "period" (e.g., month-to-month, year-to-year) and what notice will be required to terminate. I put that it was month-to-month (despite being a commercial lease for more than one year) because rent had been paid on a monthly basis, and that one month's notice was thus required to terminate. But then I argued that, despite Tenant's call stating "I'm terminating," the Tenant had instead executed a valid assignment of the lease. About that question, I feel pretty o.k.; that I completely failed to mention the HDC rule or presentment warranties on #6, NOT so much. Time to jump into a very deep glass of wine.

what is the examsoft # please?

1-900-BOOBIES

ps mee state folks, what was the contracts/damages problem even asking? i have only a vague idea...

Just now got an email confirming the upload of my second exam file. Three hours after I tried to manually upload it.

200 - I had the exact same problem. My AM uploaded just fine and i got an instant confirmation email. My PM manually uploaded ok (so it said), but I never got a confirmation email & it didn't show up in my exam history. I tried 3 or 4 times. Called examsoft and was on hold over 1 hour. Finally got through and it took the guy 30 seconds to upload it. Not sure what he did, but it worked. I think you should be fine if the manual upload is confirming the upload. Maybe the server is just crazy busy?

200 - I had the exact same problem. My AM uploaded just fine and i got an instant confirmation email. My PM manually uploaded ok (so it said), but I never got a confirmation email & it didn't show up in my exam history. I tried 3 or 4 times. Called examsoft and was on hold over 1 hour. Finally got through and it took the guy 30 seconds to upload it. Not sure what he did, but it worked. I think you should be fine if the manual upload is confirming the upload. Maybe the server is just crazy busy?

200 - I had the exact same problem. My AM uploaded just fine and i got an instant confirmation email. My PM manually uploaded ok (so it said), but I never got a confirmation email & it didn't show up in my exam history. I tried 3 or 4 times. Called examsoft and was on hold over 1 hour. Finally got through and it took the guy 30 seconds to upload it. Not sure what he did, but it worked. I think you should be fine if the manual upload is confirming the upload. Maybe the server is just crazy busy?

I had an outstanding day today in Albany.

Right now, I'm doing all the things I like to do. I'm sitting by the hotel pool, I've got two beautiful ladies on either side of me, I'm drinking champaign, chasing it down with shots of Jack Daniels mixed with Heineken. This... is civilized.

I am actually looking forward to blowing through the MBE. I'm really only limited by how fast I can fill in the bubbles. This is occasion presents a fine opportunity to explore Albany's nightlife and accrue Marriott points.

I had an outstanding day today in Albany.

Right now, I'm doing all the things I like to do. I'm sitting by the hotel pool, I've got two beautiful ladies on either side of me, I'm drinking champaign, chasing it down with shots of Jack Daniels mixed with Heineken. This... is civilized.

I am actually looking forward to blowing through the MBE. I'm really only limited by how fast I can fill in the bubbles. This is occasion presents a fine opportunity to explore Albany's nightlife and accrue Marriott points.

All -- just got off the phone with Exam Soft. These instructions worked perfectly for me, but follow at your own risk!

1. Close Exam Soft.
2. Open soft test\archive folder
3. right click on exam you need to upload
4. click copy
5. hit back button on folder
6. open softest\exam folder.
7. Right click and hit paste.
8. Reopen Exam Soft. The file should auto-upload at this point.

I am the one who couldn't get the PM file to work. This fixed it immediately. Hope this helps anyone with a similar problem.

#163-

Oh I am going to blame Widener. The problems with their bar review reach much further than the board of bar examiners picking tricky things to test on.

The outlines provided were inconsistent at best; the evidence one was non-existent. The equity "outline" was like some long essay, or maybe some student's law review note. The lecturers mainly read from said outlines instead of actually teaching the materials. The only outline that listed DE exceptions was the property one. Not to mention the crazy amount of inaccuracies in the answers to previous exams that their professors wrote (i.e. that a private plaintiff can sue a state university for injunction as well as damages, somehow dismissing the 11th Amendment).

So, while I think I did just fine on Monday, I don't ascribe much of that to Widener.

-#52

was on hold for over an hour. AM uploaded fine, PM didn't. what the guy told me to do was copy the PM file, paste it in C:\Program Files\ExamSoft\SofTest\exams... and then double click and open the softest exam program... it should upload automatically then.

Ny essays

each partner is agent of the corp & can bind to Ks but not if outside of scope of partnership so other partner can sue in Action of Accounting or whatever for the lost money (even though you should say NY default -share profits equally & losses follow profits blah blah blah)

i said the easement arose by necessity and the only way to extinguish it was for the necessity to end & that non-use is irrelevant. also, just in case, threw in that the other purchasers were in privity with grantor blah blah and the easement was apparent so they had notice. didn't really know

also, if the tenancy by entirety was not properly sold pursuant to the durable power of attorney the wife could claim the whole - 3rd party purchaser would be out of luck so she either gets nothing or everything but i think the power of attny was fine and she should just go after the husband

#217 - Genius, ExamSoft should get a clue and use technology to get this info out instead of making people sit on hold for hours.

164: No. Clear your head. Tomarrow is another day. If you graduated from an ABA accredited school and are a first itme taker, 80% you will be fine.

Drink 3 glasses of wine, do not look up anymore answers.

That is all.

IL - I totallty missed the periodic tenancy, oops. I did think she terminated fine and could assign.

1st Amendment/Torts - what? I actually used the phrase "While the rights to free speech and freedom of the press are protected, they are no unfettered."

#6 I started talking all agency bs and then brought in HDC for CheckNow in Part 2.

The contracts/remedy one I took basically as an equity vs legal remedy question.

anyone take Pennsylvania and think it wasn't that bad? Except that last question, which still wasn't that bad?

actually 220, scope of agency is for tort liability. for K liability you need authority

ny bar - 4th amendment/probable cause question

whenever you have a question asking about the suppression of evidence based on whether there is probable cause, you have a 4th amendment question - 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. search - the car. seizure - stopping the car. this is because we are dealing with the exclusionary rule under the 4th amendment as a protective measure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

the non-personal knowledge of the officer may be enough to give him probable cause in other states, new york follows aquillar-spinelli (sp?) test and not katz (which modified aquillar-spinelli, and other states use). new york requires tips from informants to have both reliability and basis of knowledge. there's basis of knowledge - watchman, he's a security guard, that's how he knows- but no reliability (he never gave testimony before)

however, it is enough to give the police officer reasonable suspicion - that which is needed for a terry-level stop of the car. which D did. when he did that, he saw the empty gas can - that under plain view doctrine he could seize ...but watch out! D did not have the right of access to the gas can because he cannot enter a car merely upon reasonable suspcious. however, the gas can corroberated Watchman's testimony, meeting the reliability prong of aquillar-spinelli, and thereby giving D probable cause in new york.

upon finally having probable cause, D could arrest B, and properly seize items under a search incident to a lawful arrest within the interior (not trunk, locked containers, or glove compartment) of the car.

therefore, because there was a reasonable search of B's car and a lawful seizure of the gas can, the evidence of the gas can should not be excluded under the exclusionary rule in B's case-in-chief.

that was like the only question i was remotely okay with.

104--right on. I felt the same way.
194--I actually wrote "periodic tenancy by operation of law", which I pulled out of my you know what. I looked it up, and that was actually what it was called.

Here's the real question--in that Federal Jurisdiction question (IL afternoon), how many people picked up that the whole case lacked subject matter jurisdiction because it was in federal court on diversity grounds in defendant's home state (no local defendant rule)?? That was pretty tricky on their part.

i thought aguilar spinelli was for the magistrate in givign out warrant. whatever. that wasa my worst qquestion.

Not being sarcastic - what is an "adopted out" child? And how does that affect whether she could take under the will? It described it as "Ann's issue" if memory serves, which would have been unascertainable at the time of the will, correct? What bearing does that have on it?

Anyone take Fla today? Thoughts?

(And when I post this 3 or 4 times, it's intentional - I want a response.)

ann's kid was adopted in. i think she took because she's considered issue for gifts like that. not sure though

charles was adopted out. his kid took because of anti-lapse because charles was specifically named in will.

Illinois MEE 6-Both my girlfriend and I focused the first part on the agency relationship and whether there was implied authority to enter into an accord and satisfaction. The second part, I focused on whether or not Checknow was a holder (they weren't) and whether or not Finisher negligently hired the administrator, thus barring recovery.

217 - how do you open the soft test / archive folder? Thanks so much!

Anyone take Fla today? Thoughts?

(And when I post this 3 or 4 times, it's intentional - I want a response.)

229 - you got heirs and issue confused (remember franceze...a living person has no heirs! like shenaid o'connor).

an adopted out child is a child that was adopted out to another family.

someone mentioned 'estranged' - that just means you're not talking to her anymore.

227 - huh? local defendant affects removal.. but not plain old subject matter j. maybe we had a different fed J question.

Adopted out means that you put up your kid for adoption. The issue people are referring to is Bob who was adopted out in 1955 and died before decedent. Since there was a specific gift in the wall, anti-lapse protects the issue of Bob

OK, did I just secure my seat in February or was there NO conflict of laws, fed jurisdiction, very little NY practice, no trusts??? WTF NY?? Someone soothe my mind and tell me to book a hotel room for feb, or that NY just screwed us by the head fake on all that sh*t!

Which states have 3 day bar exams, besides Texas? 3 days of this crap sucks, but at least the tx civil procedure and evidence exam today was a breeze (can't say that for the criminal--WTF?).

the A-spinelli test only applies when you are dealing with an informant - not an eye-witness to a crime. This would be like a drug informant or something. AS is inapplicable - it has to do with getting a warrant; not a warrantless arrest.

CHINA SUCKS

I think their biggest attempt to scare us was a CrimPro only essay. They only do that once in a while. I hear you though 238--I memorized fucken corporations and there was nothing--wtf.

aquillar spinelli has to do with having probable cause...to get a warrant..but it's probable cause, people

Anyone take the PA bar?

I said there was SMJ for the fed. I also said the counterclaim would not have SMJ because the case was only brought on diversity so no supp jxdn. I don't know why I'm on this site, I'm just too curious.

227: I thought federal SMJ was proper. I thought that the rule that you're citing only applied when the defendant was trying to remove a case from state court to federal court, and the case was originally filed in D's home state (on his turf, so no removal).

What did people say for the MEE contracts question about whether or not Rancher should get the 500k? I said he should get it under expectation damages, but I really didn't know.

242 -- there was definitely a bit of evidence involved in the first essay, also. not pure crim pro, but close

Aguilar Spinelli has to do with probable cause based on anonymous tips or informants, not all probable cause. At least I freaking hope so.

238: for NY, I recall no:

NY Practice (other than the pure comparative negligence part, which I thought of as torts)
UCC
Crim Law
Corps
Trusts
Fed Jur
Prof Resp
Conflicts
Comm Paper

easier than poopin' in a hat!

227 -

I thought that rule only applied if the D was trying to remove the case to federal court.

239, AL is also a 3 day exam.

R the partners/K essay: was there anythg to the third question besides partnerships are liable and partners are personally liable? There was nothing about the window K being unenforceable, right? Only asking because they broke the Q into subparts

could Marino's essay predictions have been any MORE wrong????

For Rancher I was all over the place. I said 500K was wrong as a legal remedy b/c money damages were to speculative - he was estimating everything and had never run the clinics there before. More accurate would have been $120K... he told Gasco he would save $40 that year x 3...???? I was talking a lot about equity.

R the partners/K essay: was there anythg to the third question besides partnerships are liable and partners are personally liable? There was nothing about the window K being unenforceable, right? Only asking because they broke the Q into subparts

249 - I had a heart attack before I saw it was a NO list ! I agree, except UCC9 for crappy secured transgender thing

127-- no present sense impression in NY without corroboration.

227 here. Upon further review, I believe I was mistaken. D'oh!

257 -- oh right, forgot about the sec trans UCC bit. Wish I could edit.

249 - I had a heart attack before I saw it was a NO list ! I agree, except UCC9 for crappy secured transgender thing

PA takers....

Is it just me or was the only civ pro on the PT?
And there was one little evidence question on a hearsay exception?
Lots of DUI?
Easiest property question in the world?
No conflicts?
Way too much contracts?
(PS - I put condition precedent for the dog one. I think now it should have been subsequent. oops! Oh well!)

All in all I thought it went really well. Thank goodness my computer didn't de-register me!!!!

guys in my high school used to poop in hats all the time. it wasn't a big deal.

Dear #217:

I will bear your children.

THANK YOU.

@ 247 - you can still use supp J in diversity - ancillary jurisdiction supports a compulsory counterclaim for less than the jurisdictional amount, it depends on whether it's compulsory v. permissive. i think :P

for the K one.. i didn't know honestly. i said something like, expectation v. diminution in value, rancher wanted his expectation/where he'd be if no K/no breach damages... gasco wanted to pay just the damages for loss of value, but that's not the correct measure for breach.. then consequential/mitigation damages in the second part. but i was a little blindsided by that one, mean to put it at the end.

The bookkeeper detective analysis was:

CC is implicated because it was a testimonial admission; under Crawford, no testamonial admission unless you can cross (or you lost that chance by killing witness); however, testamonial is OK if its an emergency response (which this was bc of fire), BUT it is still hearsay not within an exception

225 - a partner can enter contracts on behalf of teh corporation that are within the scope - a partner doesn't need explicit express authority from the partnership every time he enters a K - that is crazy

the issue was that it was outside of the scope
check your notes

144 - complete and utter d-bag

180 - NO!!! That is ridiculous. Testator may or may not have been a BFP when he purchased the paintings, but who gives a sh*t? No one is contesting Testors ownership or interest in the painting. The point is that the banks perfected and attached their security interests in the painting from him after he already owned it. He owned the painting and THEN the banks lend him $ secured by the painting.

Once the banks filed a security instrument (under UCC 9), they are perfected, attached creditors, and PACs win over ALL subsequent takers except a buyer in the ordinary course of business. Museum was not a buyer in the ordinary course of business - it was a recipient of a gift - thus the security interests of Banks A and B remain on the painting (with priority based on the order of filing, by the way).

Now take your shelter rule and shove it.

anyone still having trouble with uploads or is it just me?

This whole thread is pathetic.

Who does this?

I pulled it completely out of my ass, but I want to confirm this was wrong. Is there anyway the NY question on whether the judge can order the witness to not talk to their attorney over the weekend could be construed as a first amendment issue? I had written half of that stupid analysis out before I realized it was more likely a 6th A issue, but didn't really have time to go back and change it.

Any merit to that?

271 - the same people who keep reading til post 269

BFD PACs and BIOCs have nothing to do with the Q; this came under the charitable donation of fine art exception:

The museum has the option of paying the lien as a "fine art" institution, which means 20% or no more than $75K of the debt

@ 265 - thanks for the clarification on the Fed. I think I made it up that it was permissive, but had no idea.

My Rancher answer was very close to yours, except definitely did not think about mitigation of damages.

I think it's funny I can however many multiple choice on these subjects, but when forced to write about them on my own, I go retard.

Actualy, I just skimed the thread for old times sake (been there, done that).

After day's #1 and #2 got modertely drunk.

After day #3 got really drunk.

Did not rehash answers.

Threw outline away.

Somehow passed.

There was a small NY Practice in the Torts Q also regarding motion for judgment as a matter of law. You were supposed to say "movant wins the motion if the facts established by the plaintiff in its case do not provide support for each element of the tort" or some such thing, and then argue that the landowner loses the motion b/c the facts indicate possible negligence (breach of duty), so it can't be disposed of as a matter of law. In contrast, the store-owner owes no duty, so it can be disposed of as a matter of law.

But I doubt most ppl went into that, just bonus points if you did.

NY is a 3 day exam. Day 3 : kill self.

So if we missed the Youngstown issue and just wrote "sure, the Prez can do whatever he wants to defend against terrorism," did we fail? (assuming we did catch the anti-commandeering issue)

277 - owner has no duty for common areas in commercial leases ? bc I said it did, as it's the case in accomodation leases.

Anyone take Fla today? Thoughts?

(And when I post this 3 or 4 times, it's intentional - I want a response.)

Anyone take Fla today? Thoughts?

(And when I post this 3 or 4 times, it's intentional - I want a response.)

To the dude in Albany wearing the suit:

Nice suit, douche. Betcha think you look "smart." Dumbass.

I'm not reading all these comments but I feel for the person who didn't see the Secured Transactions. I guess it was the last problem. Everyone I spoke to had to make up law for durable power of attorney and the adjournment issue. Barbri didn't cover it so we are all on the same boat and I'm sure you are fine if you are in the ballpark. Some of those MC questions were ridiculous, but expected.

And why are people talking about the MPT? Who cares whether you were right as to how many causes of action there were. I don't think thats the point of the MPT.

I handwrote my exam and I'm having some difficulty handing it in or "uploading" it. Does anybody have any suggestions? Is there a fax number?

Much obliged.

What was Maryland civ pro issue in divorce case?Didn't even catch it.

270, I just got out (in CA) and I can't upload my exams right now. I'm hoping it's just that their servers are overwhelmed and will come back soon.

On Youngstown: turn the paper over and it becomes Executive Order 666. So if I pointed out the Bush administration's amazing bungles and recent losing streak on Executive powers, that was added points, right?

What was Maryland civ pro issue in divorce case?Didn't even catch it.

284 - the Barbri weirdo in Agency-Pnip lecture (one of the best IMHO) talked about powers of attorney, even durable ones.

lol @ 285

It smelled really bad at the door for hall B-2 on the way out in NY today. Somebody must have left their pooped-in hat there.

280 - Owner DOES have a duty, but it's a straight up reasonable person duty (remember that NY abolished the common law distinctions for landowner duty to those on the land). So yes, he does have a duty, but it's for the jury to decide on the facts presented whether he breached that duty, not for the judge to throw the case out or find guilty as a matter of law.

That's why I was saying it was a NY Practice issue (in response to some ppl earlier who said there was no NY Practice on the exam). The thing to recognize is that the judge can't decide the issue for or against the Owner AS A MATTER OF LAW, because negligence or lack thereof is a question of fact.

289 - i know i heard the durable power of attorney there but that durable power of attorney issue was not the same one. great, it survives death. what the hell happens when there isnt even an official separation between spouses?

Just so he doesn't scare anyone, 240 is wrong about aguilar-spinelli

So does anyone have a satisfactory anwer regarding whether partnership assets can be attached by personal creditors? Was there a secured transactions aspect to that question?
Bar/Bri really got caught with their pants down on that question (I hope).

NY Contracts / Partnership / Agency essay:

lotta folks probably argued that partner had *apparent authority* to bind the partnership (A & B Landscaping, "ABL"), but shouldn't the the window company have been on notice that no authority existed in the agent of a LANDSCAPING company to purchase WINDOWS?

PRO TIP: argue "yes" for an extra 1/3 of a point.

-295... no they can't. that was definitely not in barbri, but i knew it from agency/ps class. p/s = own legal entity, etc.

i wasn't sure about the dissolution thing though, that was kind of random and i'd never heard of it. i guessed no because that seems ridiculous.

Go study for the MBE tomorrow! What are you doing talking about past essays?

durable power just means it cannot be pulled at will (like a simple agency relationship), the point is that separation did not end his power to enter contracts on her behalf (and he could sell the land as an agent on her behalf because he had written approval (so no SOF problems)

294 -- please clarify as to your comment re: aguilar/spinelli. you might make my night

could Marino's essay predictions have been any MORE wrong????

293 - Right, but I think that many people did not explain what really was a durable power of attorney, so if you said it (doesn't terminate with death...) and made up the rest, I think that's pretty good. I did and don't worry, I just want a 4.5 on each essay, not the nobel prize in bar exam trivia.

LOL 283!!! I guess he thought he was in Virginia where they have to wear a suit. That's good news for you...he may have gotten the damn state wrong!

295: I didn't know the answer to this either, but I premised my answer on the assumption that personal creditors cannot get to the assets of a partnership (aside from the one liquid asset of a partnership--profits). BarBri never taught us that but it was the best guess I had. I thought we learned at one point that membership, partnership assets, etc. were not transferable so I just brain dumped that stuff...

@ 301, they usually are. That man doesn't need to teaching anything related to the NY bar.

step worrying you can get 50% of the answers wrong and still pass!! we will find out in Nov!!

301 - yes: he talked about a car accident... OK there was none, but there was a car in crim pro. He saw it coming, a gift a la X-files.

beth had apparent authority to bind the partnership. if it doesn't pay, clear windows can sue beth because general partners are personally liable for the debts of the partnership.

219: Thanks, you saved my bacon. One less thing off my mind.

Not that I believe that NY would really give you a 0 for not uploading by 11:59 pm when it's ExamSoft's fault and when they have a copy of your exam on the USB.

Taking it in CA--computer crashed at end of AM session. Crashed at beginning of afternoon PT test. Exam Soft phone number is busy. Not cool Exam Soft, not cool.

OK CA takers:

1. What was up with the really long #1 PR essay? The only PR essay that has taken me a whole hour. Seriously!

2. Um, federal power? Executive Orders? Fourth Amendment? Seriously? Why not just give us an easy Con Law essay. A nice First Amendment. Made up everything on #2.

3. Long Contracts/Remedies essay. Couldn't find the offer or acceptance. Way to go CA, way to go.

I am going to drink lots of alcohol now. See you tomorrow. I apologize if I puke on you from being hungover. My bad.

Cheer up 310. Essay #2 was a giant mess. And yeah, the K essay was really disorganized. The only real issues were offer, acceptance, consideration, and quasi-K right?

argh. argh. argh.

224 - Completely agree on Pennsylvania

Thanks 311. I think I made enough stuff up on 2 and 3 to survive and hopefully my computer gets fixed by Day 3. I think those were the only issues in #3. That is all I wrote about.

I seriously loved my proctor though. When my computer died she made sure I wasn't going to freak out before she walked away. She just kept telling me it was going to be okay and that they would be able to recover my answers. I just wish Exam Soft would answer the damn phone!

Best of luck 311.

310

300, 240 said: "the A-spinelli test only applies when you are dealing with an informant - not an eye-witness to a crime."

This is false. It's true that Aguilar-Spinelli most often comes up when dealing with 1) warrants and 2) "informants." However, there is obviously no requirement that to apply its test, the informant not be an eye-witness. One of the prongs of the test is basis of knowledge, where firsthand knowledge will satisfy.

#217 saved my life. I'm nominating you for a Nobel Peace Prize!

@310

I also made up everything in #2. Although I got the conclusions and basic rules right, I never thought to include Youngstown or presidential actions in direct opposition with Congress or anything like that... Hopefully someone will read it and give me a 65 at least. Just hoping to make up for it on the MBE.

314, you're wrong. A/S strictly applies to valid PC to get a warrant from a mag. It has nothing to do with stopping a suspect's car.

Took FL today--thought the multiple choice was pretty tough and that trusts essay really came out of nowhere. Here's hoping that 1/3 of the room did even worse than I did.

Dude in front of me today pulled out a handgun, screamed at the top of his lungs, "I have a right to bear arms." He then proceeded to blow his brains out onto my computer. The proctors waited 15 minutes for me to clean up before starting the exam. I thought that was real nice of them.

I agree 100% 198. I hate people who are talking about it. I want to hear some funny stories, people who passed out, farted, etc. I DON'T want to go on ATL and check my frickin' score. What the hell is the point of that?

What were the rules re: CA essay 2? I just put that the president can enact an executive order if he wants.

I'm hoping that I made up for it in a good anti-commandeering analysis.

also took fla today. took ga last july right out of school, barely studied 20 hrs before this past weekend. as a corp atty, not only do i think i missed everthing re evidence & civil litigation, i think i might've missed a few p'ship/corp questions.

do you generally get fired if you fail the second bar you take? starting to worry . . . .

California here- examsoft still fubar- I finally got a successful manual upload message, but did not get an email confirmation. The upload message said to await confirmation within ten minutes, but it hasn't come. Examsoft phone system seems overloaded, too- pressed 3, then 3 for exam upload confirmation and got the full mailbox. Then I tried 4 (all other callers) and got a busy signal.

Re CA essay 2: I just made up a bunch of "twilight zone" stuff for the first part, and found the preemption and fourth amendment stuff a lot easier. It was tricky though.

295/297:
Facts indicated that these were all loans to each person for 'personal financial problems' and 'personal finances', i.e., outside the scope of the business of the partnership. They were loans to AB and C as individuals.

I said for A's creditor they were screwed since she was 'judgment-proof'.

For B's creditor, he needed to reduce the debt to judgment, judgment lien.

For C's creditor, since C executed a valid assignment of ALL of his pship interest to White, White stepped in C's shoes and therefore had the right to inspect the pship books and records, as well as participate in management. Also could force a dissolution if he withdrew from the pship, since in a GP withdrawal of a general partner triggers that. Absent an agreement to continue, I thought the pship would have to be wound up.

I am so pissed I didnt have an opportunity to (a) note the factual contacts; (b) note the differing laws; (c) note the underlying policies; and (d) apply the facts to the policies. Was that a joke?

#324 - what the hell, you can't assign your partnership interest in managing the partnership without unanimous consent of the other partners or as otherwise provided in the partnership agreement. You honestly think a partner at your local law firm can assign his right to manage the firm to his 20 year old son?

317, check again. Aguilar-Spinelli is valid for determining PC from a tip, period. Sorry if your 30 mins of BarBri instruction led you to believe otherwise.

I just whipped out MPQ2 because I'm a gunner.

286: The DC court lacked jurisdiction to award custody and to determine support. It was definitely set up with the intent to trip people up.

From what I can recall...

In MD the District Court has the ability to hear protective order cases but doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction over issues related to child custody or support. Original jurisdiction for these types of actions is exclusively vested in the Circuit Court.

Therefore the DC could properly hear P's petition for a domestic violence protective order but did not have the power to grant custody to P or to award the monthly $3,000 child/family support payments. Thus, due to lack of SMJ, the judgment of the DC is void as to these issues.

Al should move to dismiss/vacate the judgment and should properly file a custody and support action in Circuit Court. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction isn't capable of being waived and can be brought up at any time.

This will give A the opportunity to ask the court to consider his pension payments and business expenses (which weren't offered for the DC consideration in the first action); however hese types of expenses are not typically considered (general rule is "actual income" minus payments for health insurance, prexisting child support obligations, etc.) in the calculation.

Al could seek a deviation from the guidelines by citing these expenses, but that is usually difficult to achieve. Best possibility likely lies with the expenses associated with his self-employment.

217-8:16: Your workaround for Examsoft worked for me too--I'd recommend that Lat publish this to the main page. I had the same problem 323-9:52 had, with my NY-PM exam file uploading correctly but my NY-AM exam file not registering. Follow the workaround 217 posted and it should work. $*&#ing ExamSoft...

Yep, 326 is right. Assignee has no rights to anything, and couldn't dissolve because it was a partnership for a term.

That's about the only thing I got right today.

326--that's an extremely impolite way to make your point. Anyway, I think 324 probably nailed it other than that small point. At least he stuck his neck out and tried to answer 295's question. You are a bad person.

You people are are SERIOUS losers. I was drunk by 5:45.

Drunker now...

272--I mentioned 1st amendment as "also note" at the end of the analysis for 6th amendment and even mentioned the attorney-client privilege which suggests that there is a strong policy protecting the relationship betweeen the attorney-client. I think the 1st amendment issue was small but it will definately get you some credit.

I am driving right from the damn bar tomorrow to Kingda Ka and then getting ice cream. This is almost fucking over!!!!

334, I hope they grade your exam and my exam back to back, and our first amendment brilliance causes them to change the answer key. + 3 points for 1st amendment.

Didn't anyone wear a diaper or puke or something?
The rooms at the Westchester location were about 100 degrees, at least for handwriters.
NY to SHORTS.

i heard that someone at javits threw up in their standard-issue BarBri clear plastic bag ... i was handwriting at the Brooklyn Marriott, so this is complete hearsay that doesn't fall under any exception.

Can't believe I bothered to check this, but re: the Aguilar-Spinelli issue on the NY essay, check essay #29 and the answer in the back of your NYT book. Basically the same issue. The model answer doesn't discuss A-S at all-- just discusses the 4A standard for arrest, then says that "although [officer] did not observe the transaction herself, she arrested [D] based on reasonably trustworthy facts sufficient to warrant a reasonably prudent person to believe that to believe [D] had committed a crime," and so the arrest is legit.

give it up

STOP PEOPLE. Seriously. Stop discussing answers!!!

You have a big day ahead tomorrow - shut down your computer, zone out to TV and get a good night's sleep. Nothing you learn during these few hours tonight will help you pass tomorrow, and worse, it can make you uneasy and ill rested.

The majority of the people that I know who failed the NY bar stayed up the night after the essays to cram for the MBE. Trust yor brain -- you've made it through law school, you know how to study, and if you worked this summer, the information is in there.

Good Luck!

STOP PEOPLE. Seriously. Stop discussing answers!!!

You have a big day ahead tomorrow - shut down your computer, zone out to TV and get a good night's sleep. Nothing you learn during these few hours tonight will help you pass tomorrow, and worse, it can make you uneasy and ill rested.

The majority of the people that I know who failed the NY bar stayed up the night after the essays to cram for the MBE. Trust yor brain -- you've made it through law school, you know how to study, and if you worked this summer, the information is in there.

Good Luck!

California

First Essay: Long PR question
Second Essay: Con law crossed with Criminal Procedure (presidential power, state sovereignty, fourth amendment)
Third Essay: Contracts crossed with Remedies

Were we supposed to keep our green bracelets on?

Folks taking the bar,

This is a seminal week in your lives. You will all look back on this fondly someday as something of a right of passage. For now though, there is nothing to be gained from discussing test questions over which you can do nothing about. You're just stressing yourselves out. Give up, have a drink, and hit the rest of the test hard tomorrow. It's almost over, unless you are in California.

And DAMN, that dog had big balls.

Isn't it weird how all these people keep posting how we need to get a life and stop discussing essays? I mean, if you had something so much better to do, why aren't you doing that, instead of trolling this board which is obviously going to be filled with stuff from the day's essays? Stop your tsk-tsking and YOU go and do something better, have yourself a drink or ten, and stop telling us to stop talking about it...

Essay 1 NY: I got the landlord-tenant issue, but anyone discuss duty of owner of premises that is held open to public to warn or repair those conditions that could be revealed by a reasonable inspection fo the property? Since Owen owned the shopping plaza as a whole, and merely leased the interior of the stores? Or does that comprise the same issue as a landlord's duty to maintain common areas? Does that even apply to commercial leases, or is residential? I threw all of the above out at some time... hope something was right... I know NY isn't into categories of entrants on property, but it enters into the negligence analysis so i mentioned it.

If we didn't mention Youngstown are we fuqed?

ugh. finally made it on to hold with Exam Soft. hopefully they can fix my computer before thursday.

My brain thinks the test is over and is leaking information about the MBE topics. :|

hey for everyone still worrying about uploads - I think they've just updated the system - so it should finally work.

Anyone else surprised that West Virginia had a Family Law question? Just guessing, but it seemed reasonable that there would be an exception to allow marrying your minor cousin if she was pregnant.

CA
essay #2 that was a beast.

Another CA bar taker here...didn't mention Youngstown and really just made crap up for all of part one, and most of part two.

I totally glazed over the CA and ABA ethics distinctions in my prepping, so #1 didn't go so great either, though at least I feel like I got all the issues, if not any of the distinctions...that should be good for 50 points, I'm hoping.

I thought the PT1 was pretty straightfoward though, so hopefully I'll pick up points there.

The good thing re: CA #2 was that no one knew anything pretty much.

We all take barbri and it wasn't covered. Make up the rules and go on.

For #1, is it bad I don't know any distinctions? And then I get home, to look it up, and I couldn't find very many that were covered on the test?

355 - were there any distinctions covered?

I took a stab with fee agreements being in writing/signed versus not being in writing and signed, though I am 99% sure that's a distinction between my home law school state and the ABA, and not a CA/ABA distinction. Oh well...

What do you want to bet on Civ Pro and Evidence on Thursday...apparently neither were on the Feb exam.

314,

240 here. You might be right, especially if you studied this case in law school (I didn't). I was going purely off of what was said briefly in the barbri crim class and what is in the NY testing volume which does limit it explicitly (or impliedly at the least) to informant situations. Apologize if I freaked anyone out; i could be wrong.

Los Angeles Ballroom. First Morning of the Bar.
An earthquake hits, a piece of the chandelier falls and crashes on a desk, and almost no one stops typing to get under a table.

CA distinctions:

1) fee agreement >$1K must be in writing (unless corporation, prior dealings w/parties, etc)
2) fees: ABA must be reasonable; CA not "unconscionable"

that's all I got... probably was more

356- that's more than I did.

I'd bet a body part that CivPro is Thursday, along with Evidence.

Watch, they're do trusts, corporations, and torts. Ha.

"Bob gets a paper cut while filing articles of incorporation for Nonprofit Corporation, which is being formed to serve as a trustee of Widow's estate.

Discuss the President's authority to wiretap Bob's phone."

so what happens if i completely missed the hearsay exceptions for the evidence issue and the 6th amendment right to counsel for the overnight ban on speaking to layer? Am I supposed to get ready for February?

346,

I think I speak for most of the other folk who didn't take the bar today by saying that this is a funny way to look back at our past lives.

More importantly, I'm devestated that none of you bright young minds took advantage of the comedic gift that was offered to you (unintentionally) by # 40:

"anyways, I knew what durable POA was....when the POA was broad"

I know what I durable piece of ass is as well...but I definitely do not like it when my durable piece of ass is "broad."

First to use a "durable POA" in my next POV flick.

FWIW - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aguilar-Spinelli_test

lol @ CA essay #2

good thing NO ONE! knew that one. EEEEEVRYBOOODY PASSES!

WOW! I SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD ALL THAT COFFEE TODAY. TOOK 9 BREAKS, CAN'T SLEEP. LOOSENED BOWELS, TOO. I'M GOING TO STAY AWAKE AND POWER THROUGH.

you guys are insane for coming to this site and reading what your peers have to say about this test. go fuc*ing watch a movie, relax, eat a turkey club, sleep and I hope you all fail.

IL: anyone else think that the examiners could have selected more relevant choices for MEE?

Given the impact of subprime on the economy and record foreclosures, I was sure we'd see a RE question on mortgages/foreclosure (and not some arcane rule as to periodic tenancy by operation of law). For good measure, they could have had the commercial paper question involve the transfer of a mortgage note (and not some obfuscatory bullshit like the second half of #6). And why not a corporate question (e.g., is a director liable for pushing the corp into making/buying lots of subprime loans, what does a Bear Stearns have to do in order to sell all its assets, etc.)? For con law, it an election year, why not something on executive power, voting, spending limits, or protests? Trespass and the First Amendment - what the hell?! And not a single question involving crim pro or family law.

anyone else bailing on MBE day?

anyone else bailing on MBE day?

Good luck today!

Hey posters...look at the comments above and below yours. One of you will fail!

Was there a 10th amendment thing in Cal #2? Someone said there was a fact about commandeering state officials. Damned if I remembered anything like that.

One of my friends took NY yesterday (and today) in Javits, said there was this guy who was asleep on his desk at the beginning of the afternoon session.

About an hour into the afternoon, she glanced over and saw that this guy was STILL knocked out, head laid down on his desk, dead to the world. AND THE PROCTORS JUST LET HIM LAY THERE!!! They didn't touch him.

As she left the afternoon session, she looks back, and this guy is STILL asleep. She said some of the students were talking about it afterwards and they all felt bad for this guy and wanted to throw something at him to wake him up, but knew they couldn't have any contact per rules. They all figured the Proctors would get to him but they let him sleep for the entire afternoon session and never attempted to wake the guy. What kinda crap is that?

i thought the morning session of the MBE was a complete mind-F. here's to hoping the afternoon's a bit easier ...

376 - I thought the AM MBE was much, much more straightforward than the practice exams and all the advanced BarBri and PMBR questions I've been slaving away on. I finished it in around 2 hours and bounced pretty early.

Wooo hooooo! The asy afternoon MBE rocked my socks.

my thoughts on the MBE:

1. what was everyone talking about how the MBE is SO SO DIFFERENT from barbri/pmbr? i thought it was um almost exactly the same? maybe slightly shorter fact patterns but pretty much the same.

2. also maybe a few more "gimmes" than on pmbr/barbri.

3. other than that, felt like all the practice tests i've done (sim barbri, pmbr class, pmbr blue book, barbri full day).

DONE DONE DONE!!!

ps sorry to all the non-2 day people :(

I thought the MBE was hard as hell. Felt like I had a good grasp on the BarBri-provided rules, but that they were of LIMITED value in answering a lot of the questions. Wow, I hope I didn't fail...

MBE - Morning session much easier than afternoon session. I bet the curve is gonna be set pretty high.

BarBri SUCKS. Absolutely worthless.

381, thought the opposite. a lot of afternoon was not law but picking out BS. $20 says that they made up "common law sudden phychological attack rule" WTF?

You don't want the MBE to be easy - if it was then any bump that would have been provided by the curve will be non-existent.

MBE was MUCH harder than I expected it to be... more gimme's than PMBR, but BarBri was pretty useless.

okay shitheads, some people got part 1 in the AM and part 2 in the PM -- and vice versa, depending of your seat. cmon now

Concur - BarBri just might be the biggest FRAUD in America. $3000 bucks for what?

I'd like to sue the NY Bar for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

thought it was easier than barbri's simulated. definitely some shit I guessed on.

No f'in way that was easier than BarBri's simulated exam. You may have been more prepared relative to the difficulty, but that was much harder than the simulation. Not even close.

thought it was easier because the fact patterns were shorter. I ran out of time on barbri, but finished fine today. who the fuck knows. I'm about to focus all of my energies on smoking, drinking, and BATMAN.

Concur - BarBri just might be the biggest FRAUD in America. $3000 bucks for what?

391, you were probably just more prepared. BarBri's questions are designed so that, for the most part, their material provides the answers. On the MBE, there were a lot more questions were BarBri was useless...

The Con Law questions were brutal.

Listen -- you people asking/commenting about Maryland, West Virginia, Georgia keep silent. No one cares about you poduncks ... you aren't gonna be real lawyers even if you pass. Anyone outside of NY, DE, CA and IL should be seen and not heard.

NY, DE, CA and IL...

One of these things is just not like the other things...

The first question being a friggin fixtures question? Who the hell had priority in the dishwasher?

I said the company that sold it, because it was PMSI

The MBE sucked because the questions didn't remotely resemble anything that BAR/BRI or PMBR created.

Did anyone else feel like there were 40 questions on mortgages and real estate contracts? Also another 30 questions on damages.

Evem Torts questions had fact patterns of people slipping and falling on negligently dropped copies of mortgages on the floor.

262 - PA essays were a joke. There was one tiny Civ Pro question and it was on whether this douchebag photographer could depose a celebrity's two kids. No subject matter jurisdiction, motions, joinder, just that little question on a deposition.

Also, an easy con law question where they flat out asked if the dude had a winning Equal Protection claim. The answer is no because it's rational basis.

The Torts question on The Good Samaritan Statute was also very short, and I know nothing about Wills other than Undue Influence, so practically busted a nut in my pants when I saw that was the first question and I dodged a bullet.

Too bad the MBE was impossible today. Also, it was fun taking the exam in a giant airplane hangar with 1300 people.

The MBE had one section with all the easy questions, and the other session with 100 questions that were unanswerable from the barbri materials. There were several question formats that were totally different, but in general there were just a lot of specifics that barbri didn't cover. I definitely didn't know enough about priority of loans/mortgages/interests. I also feel like I answered a question about which "new" owner of blackacre has title about a hundred times. Hopefully the curve is good...

The MBE had one section with all the easy questions, and the other session with 100 questions that were unanswerable from the barbri materials. There were several question formats that were totally different, but in general there were just a lot of specifics that barbri didn't cover. I definitely didn't know enough about priority of loans/mortgages/interests. I also feel like I answered a question about which "new" owner of blackacre has title about a hundred times. Hopefully the curve is good...

CA bar takers: did anyone spot the robot tort issue on the 3rd essay yesterday? That was kind of a gimme, huh . . .

CA bar takers: did anyone spot the robot tort issue on the 3rd essay yesterday? That was kind of a gimme, huh . . .

UM the MBE SUCKED> It was NOTHING like barbri said and the questions were waayyy closer to PMBR. Am I the only one who feels this way??
The pmbr test was the closest thing to todays MBE and pmbr told us that their mock test questions were the top 20% hardest on the exam. Try more like 99%.
Thoughts?

397: the purchase-money interest holder had priority.

UM the MBE SUCKED> It was NOTHING like barbri said and the questions were waayyy closer to PMBR. Am I the only one who feels this way??
The pmbr test was the closest thing to todays MBE and pmbr told us that their mock test questions were the top 20% hardest on the exam. Try more like 99%.
Thoughts?

UM the MBE SUCKED> It was NOTHING like barbri said and the questions were waayyy closer to PMBR. Am I the only one who feels this way??
The pmbr test was the closest thing to todays MBE and pmbr told us that their mock test questions were the top 20% hardest on the exam. Try more like 99%.
Thoughts?

UM the MBE SUCKED> It was NOTHING like barbri said and the questions were waayyy closer to PMBR. Am I the only one who feels this way??
The pmbr test was the closest thing to todays MBE and pmbr told us that their mock test questions were the top 20% hardest on the exam. Try more like 99%.
Thoughts?

In other Bar news...

Today, in the Ontario,CA location before the afternoon session, the proctor spokesperson announced that someone had a chunk of cash in a Big BarBri or Bar envelope and that if anyone found it to please see a proctor to return it.

So ...

Anyone...

Who brings cash in a brown envelope to the Bar and then has the nerve to ask if its been found as they lost it! What did they do, leave it in the boxes outside!!

First an earthquake five miles away and then lost cash, what's next for day 3!!! :((((((

I also loved the question about someone getting charged with "attempted suicide" and the other rape question where a girl was dumb enough to let her friend bang her three times to get pregnant only to find out he's sterile. Classic.

361 - Hilarious! You should write for the NY BOLE.

I'm glad I spent no time studying future interests because it looks like they largely replaced that on the MBE with mortgage recording questions.

It was a pleasure studying dozens of hearsay exceptions all summer so that the MBE Evidence questions were mostly about burdens of persuasion and documents.

Anyone have any problems with the NY laptop software - mine totally screwed up - started typing in korean and hebrew in the middle. Screwed me for about 15 minutes...pretty sure I failed based on time

403 u r an asshole

282 - I took the Fla bar as well. Thought the first day was horrible. Wasn't prepared for a Trusts essay and the multiple choice made me want to cry. I felt a lot better about the MBE on the second day. Hopefully I did well enough to make up for the first day. What did you think?

All of you nerds and dorks SUCK! Look at you commenting about the friggin' MBE! You're worse than the nerdy dbags i went to law school with!!!!! I hope you all failed!!!!

All of you nerds and dorks SUCK! Look at you commenting about the friggin' MBE! You're worse than the nerdy dbags i went to law school with!!!!! I hope you all failed!!!!

All of you nerds and dorks SUCK! Look at you commenting about the friggin' MBE! You're worse than the nerdy dbags i went to law school with!!!!! I hope you all failed!!!!

I thought the MBE was a fucking shitshow. BarBri may as well have taken have of my money and lit it on fire for as much good as it did.

I thought the MBE was a fucking shitshow. BarBri may as well have taken have of my money and lit it on fire for as much good as it did.

The MBE was easy. BarBri is a waste of money! All you need is the Conviser Book, the State outline, and the PMBR workbooks!

324-

Partnership assets (land was titled in name of Pship) cannot be used to satisfy personal debts of individual partners. Consider corporate interests- same principle, but easier to understand. If I owned ExxonMobil stock but defaulted on my home loan, do you think Bank could collect from Exxon?

Also, right to manage Pship not assignable w/o consent of all other partners. B&R inspection probably same.

(NY) First off 226 is completely wrong, I'm sure mentioning aguilar spinelli might get you some points because it is basically related to the question of the sufficiency of probable cause, but that standard is a standard for testing the sufficiency of tips which provide the basis of a WARRANT issued by a MAGISTRATE not whether it can form the basis of probable cause for an office exercising a warrant exception (i.e. the automobile exception). Further, A-S is typically applied to ANONYMOUS TIPS, in any event , the prior points are largely irrelevant, because of the -- FELLOW OFFICER RULE?

The “fellow officer rule” imputes knowledge from one police officer to another. The rule allows an arresting officer with no firsthand knowledge of the criminality to act upon information received from another police officer (i.e. through a police bulletin), so long as the original police officer was in possession of information sufficient to constitute probable cause to make the arrest. So for extra points after discussing fellow officer exception, another question was did the first officer's conversation with the security guard provide an adequate basis of probable cause for either officer to rely on.

278- LMAO

MBE- was ridiculous at one point I actually laughed out loud.

"a man angry with his boss an with intent douses his boss's house in gasoline then sneaks into his basement and plants an explosive device. While leaving the boss's house the man drives erratically and accidently crashes into someone's house, unbeknownst to the man the boss was actually sitting at that very house he crashed into! The house lit on fire and the boss was killed. What is he guilty of?" .... LOL LOL LOL LOL.

I'm very glad I didn't even open a Bar/Bri MBE book with bullshit simulated questions and used actual questions from adaptibar.com. The AM version was still hard as hell though.

Break Down as I Remember from Day 1 NY (I’m sure I missed stuff)

Q1- Torts and NY Practice
1- Who is responsible for a common lot when the lease is silent, land lord tenant?
2- Did either the Tenant or the Landlord commit negligence (analysis of 4 elements). T- by not warning the landlord, and not warning the customer. L- by not repairing a broken sidewalk.
3- JNOV Standard
4- Does the fact that the person was carrying a statute in a way that obstructs their vision effect a comparative negligence analysis.

Q2- Criminal Procedure and Evidence
1- Is it reasonable to rely on tip provided by a fellow officer as a basis for probable cause?
2- Was the seizure of the gas tank valid?
3- Was the security guard’s statement hearsay?
4- Assuming it can come in under a hearsay exception did the statement present a confrontation clause issue (testimonial v. nontestimonial)?
5- Can a judge order an attorney not to review a client’s testimony with them over the weekend if the client is under oath in a criminal matter?

Q3- Partnership and Contracts
1- Does a pre existing duty bar future contract modifications if no consideration is provided in NY?
2- Is not providing a particular brand of windows a material breach when the windows used were the same price and quality?
3- Was a partnership formed and what was the scope of the partnership?
4- Is a partnership liable for ultra vires acts of one partner entered into on behalf of the partnership?
5- Are partner’s personally liable for debts accrued on behalf of the corporation?

Q4- Wills and Secured Transactions
1- Does a creditor who takes interest in a particular piece of property retain their interest if the property is donated?
2- If they do and there are multiple creditors all with perfected attached interests, how is priority determined?
3- Was the will validly executed?
4- Is a gift with the language “and her heirs” valid under the rule against perpetuities?
5- Does a specific gift adeem if it is not in the estate at the time of the testator's death?
6- Does an “estranged” child have any rights if disinherited?
7- Does an adopted out child if specifically given a grant get anti-lapse protection?

Q5- Property and Domestic Relations
1- Does a husband whose wife leaves him for 9 months have grounds for divorce in NY?
2- If so does the fact that the husband cheated on the wife provide an adequate justification to defeat an abandonment claim.
3- Was there an easement by prescription, necessity, express grant, or implication for the back parcel of land across the front parcel?
4- If a wife gives her husband power of attorney to sell property owned between the two as a tenancy in the entirety and the property is sold does the wife retain any interest in the property?

Here's what I thought about IIlinois Essay Qs.
1. K formed in Calls 3&4: $6000/mo for 6 mos. No Statute of Frauds defense - K for services, less than 1 year. Liq Dam clause unenforceable - $50k was punitive.
2. No PJ over Backside (nice name). No Gen Juris - Corp domiciled in MO, sending postcards into Ill. "mere solicitation" not Doing Bix. No Spec Juris - Injury in MO, No relation between any T/A of Biz and P's claim (never saw ads or website). Service of Process by mail improper. Mot / Dism untimely since filed after answer.
3. Neil took $200k per will since Illinois does not recognize equitable conversion for testamentary gifts. Sam & Diane took stamps in equal shares thru intestate succession since Frank an Interested Witness and gift Purged (as friend, would take nothing under Intestate Succ). Didn't give stamps to Nancy since her residuary gift specifically excluded stamps. Bob took baseball cards via will since Ill. doesn't recognize partial revocations by physical act.

Here's what I thought about IIlinois Essay Qs.
1. K formed in Calls 3&4: $6000/mo for 6 mos. No Statute of Frauds defense - K for services, less than 1 year. Liq Dam clause unenforceable - $50k was punitive.
2. No PJ over Backside (nice name). No Gen Juris - Corp domiciled in MO, sending postcards into Ill. "mere solicitation" not Doing Bix. No Spec Juris - Injury in MO, No relation between any T/A of Biz and P's claim (never saw ads or website). Service of Process by mail improper. Mot / Dism untimely since filed after answer.
3. Neil took $200k per will since Illinois does not recognize equitable conversion for testamentary gifts. Sam & Diane took stamps in equal shares thru intestate succession since Frank an Interested Witness and gift Purged (as friend, would take nothing under Intestate Succ). Didn't give stamps to Nancy since her residuary gift specifically excluded stamps. Bob took baseball cards via will since Ill. doesn't recognize partial revocations by physical act.

Here's what I said on MEE. Appreciate any feedback.
1. Star could establish Actual Malice v. News by fact that it printed 2d story showing she was out of state. What Scoop thought was irrelevant since he wasn't D. No 1st Am privilege vs. Trespass. Lex would lose privacy action since need to show Malice and was in public anyway.
2. Pship assets not available to satisfy personal debts of partners. Creditor should get Jdgmt and attach any future distribution. Can't assign right to manage or get books and records. Creditor of individual P can't force dissolution of Pship.
3. Fed Juris. Said D could Implead Cream Corp, but now thinking maybe it was just Joinder since liab of 3p prob to P not D. Restaurant's counterclaim was compulsory (same t/a) so had to be asserted. Counterclaim didn't have to reach $75k limit.
4. Failed oral leased created M2M periodic tenancy. 2 week notice ineffective to term. Said L had to look 1st to new T for $, but now thinking that wrong, since Privity of K with T1.
5. Didn't like this one. Sd expectation damages, so could get cost of repair since bargained for it. Diminution in FMV possible good measure tho. 2d part- said Conseq Dam only foreseeable to $40k, not 100k. Prob speculative as well since single location essentially a new venture.
6. Seemed like a g.f. dispute, so treated it as Accord & Satisfaction. 2d part tough: just used HDC rule b/c that's all I could think of. Threw in some mess about Drawer negligence at the end, but wasn't too coherent.

399 LOL!

324, 326- You cannot become a partner without consent of all parties- however, partnership interest is assignable (rights to profits). Not allowed to manage but is allowed to inspect the books. I took NY last year and its in my NY barbri book and also on Baroutlines.

The woman next to me mistakenly filled out the answer to essay #5 in the MPT booklet - she only realized this after finishing reading the MPT

428, 429-

IEE-
1. Same
2. Same
3. Same

MEE-
1. Said News is liable for Scoops actions since he was a reporter- liable because reported the story with no fact- checking, i.e. reckless disregard to the truth- since he could have easily have found out the truth.
Same on the second part. Third part argued public disclosure of private facts but said it didnt meet it because it was public interest.
2. Same except what i said in 431 and the last part said he could force dissolution but it would be wrongul so he couldnt wind up. also talked about dissociation.
3. had a tough time with this one. first part- joinder. had a whole thing about supplemental jurisidction but crossed it out cause i wasnt sure of A vs. B and B destoyed diversity but then stuck in a comment about it at the end. 2nd part- same- compulsory and supplemental jurisdiction.
4. All over the place on this one. said month to month but then thought their was a distinction for cmmercial leases so thought it was maybe year to year so put in something like that. Also, thought IL had a distinction with Statute of Frauds- which it does "doesnt apply to any estate or interest in lands...rents, common or profit from teh same that will be upon good consideration, and in good faith lawfully conveyed or assured to any person" dont really know what this means but said it may not come under teh SOF in IL. said notice ineffective and really dont remember what the hell i put for assignment. think i argued both ways. but remembered he doesnt have to accept new tenants rent if its invalid.
5. Ptf has a choice as to how he wants to calculate damages and can get the cost to repair if he chooses, especially since land is unique.
2nd part- consequential damages since its lost profits. cant be speculative so he wont get the full amount since there is nothing to compare it to since its a new business. said he could get the difference in what he would have spent at the ranch vs. what he was spending in prior years before he had the ranch, I think it was 10k a year. so 30k.
6. Argued agency with actual authority since she had authority to indorse the checks- so principal still liable for the actions, i.e. cashing the check that stated on it "payment in full" and therefore P was liable for her actions and it was satisfied. Didnt actally use the term "accord and satisfaction" though. 2nd part- argued Agent wasnt an HDC but Checknow was so it isnt liable since it takes against real defenses. Only time CN would be liable for the amount if it took from someone who acquired by theft and it wasnt since Agent had legal possession (since she was an agent).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I93_0038.htm

426: Wasn't Q4 about whether "her issue" was ambiguous and then whether an adopted child qualified as issue? Didn't see a RAP problem there...

435- I think in the end your right there was no problem with the conveyance. Grants with "and her heirs" will just be interpreted as a feel simple in the grantee. However, technically I don't think it would have been wrong for you to throw in a quick RAP analysis.

worth posting again:

Bar humor

1. People who don't record their deeds:
Hey. Fuck face. That's a nice deed you got there. Went ahead andbought Stankacre, didya? That's awesome. Owning property is a signof real maturity. Now, why don't you do us all a fucking favor, andgo record the fucking deed.Right. Fucking. Now. Don't put it in a goddamn drawer. Don't go off to India for 20 years. Don't leave the deed in your will for dear cousin Victorianox. Get your fat lazy ass down to the records office, and record it before I burn your goddamn house down.

2: Wily property sellers:
Here is a suggestion to those Bill of Rights violatin' petty thug assclowns, the Police. How about you go down to Doucheacre, and arrest the son of a bitch who sells the same house to 15 different people, over and over. I'm sick of this guy getting away every time he pullsthis shit, and I'm left to sort out the fucking pieces.

3: "Known" arsonists:
Here's a little tip to all the cretins that keep hiring "known"arsonists to burn down their cheating girlfriend's house. Why is it, do you think, that he is a known arsonist, you dipshit? He's known because he has been fucking caught before. You don't know who the good arsonists are, do you! Because they have their shit together. But no, you had to go hire Dusseldorf, or Durango, or whatever D word your fuckwit moron arsonist is named, and now he's gone and burned thewrong house, and left me with a BAR question.

4: People who back out of conspiracies:
Why don't you just stick with it and save us all some trouble, you pussy.

5. Power companies that leave an electric wire live to deter copper theft:
While I appreciate your effort to rid the world of thieves stupid enough to try and steal raw copper wiring that's fucking humming and has blue arcs dancing on it, it's just gonna bite you in the ass inthe end. Just let the copper go.

6. Fertile Octogenarians:
I think I speak for all of us when I say...
...Burn the witch!
Burn her!
And don't use a "known" arsonist!

7. People who use anything more complicated than Fee Simple Absolute in a will:
Hey, old man. Either give Horatio your fucking interest in Scroteacre, or don't, alright? Don't condition it on him growing a mustache, or learning to play the calliope, or winning "Dancing withthe Stars." Don't grant a springing executive interest to Zenobia if she manages to graduate from Ninja academy. Stop making my life more complicated than it needs to be, you Narcissistic old twat, and stop trying to control your property fromthe grave in a vain attempt to make up for your feebleness in life.

8. House Painters:
Just paint the fucking house yourself, Paulson.Trust me on this one. It's not worth it.

9. Bank Mortgages:
Hi there, First National Bank of South Calizonachussettsas. I don't mean to tell you how to run your business, but allow me to impart abit of sage wisdom.
When someone :
1) named Defaultina McBankrupstein,
2) is taking out her 17th mortgage with you,
3) on a place called Mushacre
4) so she can buy a new hat,
….do NOT fucking come crying to me when the inevitable judicial foreclosure sale nets $34, a button, and some lint, all of which are devoured by the banks that are 20 miles ahead of you in creditor line. And do not ask me whether you are a junior or senior mortgagor, or whether you debt is secured, or some other bullshit I don'tunderstand, because the answer is always the same.
D) You are Fucked. Take it like a man.

10. Wanna-be Burglars:
I am sick to death of these slackjawed melon-heads deciding at 2 a.m.that they need to borrow their neighbors wrench, and are sure he"won't mind" if they saunter on over there in the middle of the night,crowbar the garage open, smash open his tool chest, and "borrow it."And then always the inevitable fucking:
Did he commit Larceny/Burglary/Robbery?????? Ohhhhh, no intent!

Let him go, boys. Let the man go. So I can throw the wrench right at his goddamn teeth. Good thing when we are really in practice we will have these IntentGoggles (c), that can magically tell us, despite every bit of evidenceto the contrary, this jackass really didn't intend to commit a crime.He genuinely thought that breaking into your neighbor's house,stealing his car, taking a shit on his pool table, and sleeping withhis wife were all part of the social covenants between good neighbors.

to 437:

definitely not worth posting again

hth

barnibus conveyed buttacre to quiggly for a sixpence, and took a security interest in quiggly's rear end, which quiggly promptly recorded in his butt. thereafter, quiggly became impotent and struck slarns with his dog, a ciao ciao. thereafter, barnuibs foreclosed on quiggly's butt and the dog died of emotional distress. you are a law clerk unsure about your sexual orientation. please draft a memo to the judge about the claims in this matter (and spray it with perfume)

barnibus conveyed buttacre to quiggly for a sixpence, and took a security interest in quiggly's rear end, which quiggly promptly recorded in his butt. thereafter, quiggly became impotent and struck slarns with his dog, a ciao ciao. thereafter, barnuibs foreclosed on quiggly's butt and the dog died of emotional distress. you are a law clerk unsure about your sexual orientation. please draft a memo to the judge about the claims in this matter (and spray it with perfume)

436: Was the conveyance to Ann and her issue? Or just to Ann's issue? Can't remember if it went to Ann first or just went to "her issue." Do you remember?

I read it as "Ann and her Issue" although I couldn't be 100 % sure that is what it said.

Am I the only one who though we were also supposed to draft a complaint after our MPT memo in Illinois (statements about dodge, and needing transmition were the only fraudulent).?

Also, was the complaint supposed to be a complete complaint or just a setting out the facts section, i.e., no intro and prayer for relief? Could someone pleaswe answer that?

Also, IL #2 there was definitely personal jurisdiction, despite how bad service was, because they waived right to contest by answering before moving to quash service.

There was no malice against the actress, only negligence, as "he honestly thought it was her" and she is a pub. figure. the 1st Amend, obviously has nothing to do with the tresspassing, and I believe the question said the attorney was in public when photographed, so no issue there, plus he is a pub figure, and it is also arguably a matter a public concern--due to his T.V. preaching.

Also. I didn't read 6 clearly, did finisher attempt to give the actual negotiable check back to firm? If so, I don't think it was an accord and satisfaction, but I hope it was.

I still havn't recieved email confirmations for either A.M. or P.M. They assured me I was fined before left--am I screwed? Thanks for your help (especially with the COMPLAINT portion of the MPT.