tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post775647639025834086..comments2023-09-21T04:14:00.233-07:00Comments on <strike>Passing</strike> I Passed the California Bar Exam!: Hey! Don't make me come over there!The Grand Poobahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07226524231756836464noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-56117122463071952772010-03-09T01:17:50.243-08:002010-03-09T01:17:50.243-08:00Right. The question was about real property, but ...Right. The question was about real property, but the solution sounded in Con Law.The Grand Poobahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07226524231756836464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-40892852109610531362010-03-07T09:11:54.256-08:002010-03-07T09:11:54.256-08:00I thought it was a pure constitutional law essay. ...I thought it was a pure constitutional law essay. If there were property issues to talk about, I missed them. Zoning? I think I did mention something about zoning, but in the context of taking. However I still don't get why they asked about partial & total.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568704403935989389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-42755081421370592722010-03-06T22:08:35.317-08:002010-03-06T22:08:35.317-08:00Yes, and not just. The government can't take ...Yes, and not just. The government can't take one's property without just compensation. So, Constitutional issues are involved.The Grand Poobahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07226524231756836464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-1301277855167279902010-03-06T21:25:25.194-08:002010-03-06T21:25:25.194-08:00Wasn't the takings issue a property essay?Wasn't the takings issue a property essay?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-10104805457487991772010-03-04T14:09:27.222-08:002010-03-04T14:09:27.222-08:00I was also ready for property, evidence, and the 1...I was also ready for property, evidence, and the 1st amendment. It's like those bastards are psychic. They test whatever we don't study!<br /><br />I also discussed negligence & R.S. on the P.R. question. Also duty to supervise under P.R.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568704403935989389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-15493987527330515862010-03-04T13:58:34.359-08:002010-03-04T13:58:34.359-08:00yep.. they may revisit an issue or two... just be ...yep.. they may revisit an issue or two... just be ready for anything tough.. I kept thinking property was up .... and studied property heavily in the last days...I thought they might hit us with evidence again... boy was I wrong... anyway, I just hope I did not go in a tangent by discussing negligence of the partership and respondat superior by the hiring of the computer graduate/thief... PR only talked about duty of confidentiallity/attorney privilege, duty of competence, fee splitting ABA and CA, and how attorney's should not restrict their liability by forming LLC's ... as for Con law... when are they just going to test a 1st amendment problem??? ugh...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-20588854490121190662010-03-04T13:07:40.396-08:002010-03-04T13:07:40.396-08:00Well, it's my 4th attempt and I think it's...Well, it's my 4th attempt and I think it's a good idea to do an in depth analysis of everything you did wrong. First because that helps improve future performance and second because they do revisit issues twice in a row, so anything from the current test could be on the next one.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568704403935989389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-50987654083343311032010-03-04T12:20:20.913-08:002010-03-04T12:20:20.913-08:00For Agency/Partnerships I did discuss Partnership ...For Agency/Partnerships I did discuss Partnership by Estoppel after I talked about how to form an LLP(and why their LLP was defective) since there was colorable compliance. I probably went too far and did a separate section on partnerships despite their clear intent to form an LLP. I dunno! I probably shouldn't be thinking about this crap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-63735985854101817972010-03-03T17:03:50.607-08:002010-03-03T17:03:50.607-08:00I didn't, but I do see a potential argument th...I didn't, but I do see a potential argument there.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568704403935989389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-73962310700399313132010-03-03T16:58:58.077-08:002010-03-03T16:58:58.077-08:00did anybody talk about "partnership by estopp...did anybody talk about "partnership by estoppel" and took the torts approach ie negligence, vicariuous liability before discussing the PR issues?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-2915153912566754802010-03-03T16:52:54.832-08:002010-03-03T16:52:54.832-08:00there was a bar question I forget what year... whe...there was a bar question I forget what year... where a debt arose for medical necessities for wife's cocaine addiction treatment.... that happened after marriage but before dissolution... on that essay it was allocated a Community debt even though the treatment was after permanent separation... the rationale was along the lines of "necessaries of life"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-13653725452357001422010-03-03T16:00:22.830-08:002010-03-03T16:00:22.830-08:00Oy! You're right & I blew that one. Fami...Oy! You're right & I blew that one. Family Code Section 2623. <br /><br />I've been working in a family law practice for 13 years and have never seen that come up! Maybe that's because in real life, there are support orders in place that make that section inapplicable.<br /><br />On Westlaw, 2623 has almost no annotations....the closest case to the bar question was from 1948, showing how infrequently it actually comes up. Ergo, the bar examiners love it....Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568704403935989389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-11259004739909821682010-03-03T09:17:08.053-08:002010-03-03T09:17:08.053-08:00Last call for Question 6 (CP property question), y...Last call for Question 6 (CP property question), you had to discuss how the debt was a necessary (even after the community has ended) and therefore the Husband would need to pay for it (You are still liable after permanent sep for necessaries of the other spouse). That was the whole point. He be entitled to reimbursement if W had SP property available at such time.<br /><br /><br />Remedies questions, you had to talk about equity and legal defenses, in addition to attacking the elements of specific performance, i.e. lack of inadequate legal remedy, feasibility of enforcement, etc.<br /><br />Lastly, even though I did not get it, I think another poster said you need a final dissolution. I think that is a very smart, technical way of arguing, considering the circumstances.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-67310406676551300772010-03-02T13:25:23.183-08:002010-03-02T13:25:23.183-08:00Robin,
You made my day:)Robin,<br />You made my day:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-38434566572673355172010-03-02T11:18:19.603-08:002010-03-02T11:18:19.603-08:00On CP call #3 I said it was an SP debt because it ...On CP call #3 I said it was an SP debt because it was incurred after separation.<br /><br />On that second contracts question, I think they are going to label that one a pure remedies question. I didn't discuss any formation issues at all but started with SOF and hit all the remedies I could think of.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568704403935989389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-83193054172816308872010-03-02T10:38:40.438-08:002010-03-02T10:38:40.438-08:00What about call 3 on the Comm. Prop essay? Did one...What about call 3 on the Comm. Prop essay? Did one totally blow it if they called it an SP debt due to her means to pay the bill? <br /><br />Also on q 4 did you have to go through a total contracts formation thing before really getting into the specific performance and defenses? <br />Calibration person, please respond!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-39405823859686220652010-02-27T18:50:13.575-08:002010-02-27T18:50:13.575-08:00I think the word "dissolved" means there...I think the word "dissolved" means there was a final dissolution.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568704403935989389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-58187781905735791802010-02-27T15:21:52.599-08:002010-02-27T15:21:52.599-08:00The point of the last part of question 3 was that ...The point of the last part of question 3 was that the marriage was NOT a final dissolution. The facts simply stated that they only "dissolved" their marriage.<br /><br />Under the CA Probate code, the spouse can still take her intestate share until there has been a FINAL DISSOLUTION of the marriage. I double checked to see whether there wasnt a final dissolution, and there wasn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-77739978747432042012010-02-27T07:52:40.905-08:002010-02-27T07:52:40.905-08:00I'm not sure why there was a divorced spouse i...I'm not sure why there was a divorced spouse in the trust question, but maybe to get her out of the picture so she would not be an omitted spouse. I think I screwed up that question by giving Carl $100K. I think he got 1/3 of nothing because there was no probate estate to distribute.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568704403935989389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-20372602809012747282010-02-26T21:57:49.260-08:002010-02-26T21:57:49.260-08:00What about the wife who divorced her husband on q....What about the wife who divorced her husband on q.3 of day 1 (wills/trust). Why was she in the question? Were you supposed to talk about that she was due some divison of cp on divorce?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-75656122847501402752010-02-26T20:55:30.420-08:002010-02-26T20:55:30.420-08:00Also, this essay asked for an analysis of what hap...Also, this essay asked for an analysis of what happens to a business between separation and trial. Normally, assets are valued as of the date of trial, but in this fact pattern the business decreased in value between separation and trial, so there was a discussion there.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568704403935989389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-39532433243311816962010-02-26T20:48:53.351-08:002010-02-26T20:48:53.351-08:00My take on the CP essay was this: the prenup said...My take on the CP essay was this: the prenup said "wages". wages is not necessarily the same thing as efforts, which is what defines CP. Many people who own businesses take wages which are not really related to their efforts. So I based my analysis on the difference between wages and efforts. The facts gave us a difference...that the wife got $25K in wages but the value of her services was $40K. So I went ahead with Pereira & Van Camp, because under the facts, her efforts created a CP interest.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568704403935989389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-31533988133586089972010-02-26T20:39:49.725-08:002010-02-26T20:39:49.725-08:00The prenuptial agreement specified H and W's e...The prenuptial agreement specified H and W's earnings during marriage would be SP. If pre-nup is valid, no need to discuss Pereira/Van Camp (SP business, CP earnings). But since this is the bar exam, we should go with "If prenup invalid as H asserts,earnings are CP" then we need Pereira/VC and discuss. I tried to do the calculations and it was impossible (for me)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-65580656104897581042010-02-26T19:51:07.784-08:002010-02-26T19:51:07.784-08:00February 26, 2010 9:32 AM-- That is hilarious!!!! ...February 26, 2010 9:32 AM-- That is hilarious!!!! Good luck to all who took the test from a successful repeater. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5559983208580788273.post-29281535860090922812010-02-26T17:21:01.826-08:002010-02-26T17:21:01.826-08:00I think crazy essay #5 was based on this US Suprem...I think crazy essay #5 was based on this US Supreme Court case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=99-2047<br /><br />I think I kinda got it, but my whole essay was like one page long.<br /><br />RobinUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06568704403935989389noreply@blogger.com