Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - USC313

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13
61
General Board / Re: 1 year later....still glad u went to law school?
« on: December 12, 2008, 10:25:55 PM »
It's annoying how this tread is still going.

62
General Board / Re: Adverse Possession
« on: December 12, 2008, 10:23:41 PM »
Permissive use by the actual owner always disrupts adverse possession. However, what constitutes "permissive" varies by jurisdiction (in some, conduct can suffice; in others, a writing is required). To cover all your bases--go with a writing acknowledging the adverse possessers occupancy and that you, as true owner, grant them permission to continue.

63
General Board / Re: Consideration For $1 = Valid Consideration?
« on: November 21, 2008, 09:19:54 PM »
.

64
New England / Re: Thinking of NESL (IP law) need your opinion
« on: November 18, 2008, 09:28:54 PM »
Another thing to keep in mind is that most corporations will not hire recent graduates to work in their legal departments (i.e. in-house council) straight out of law school. We had lawyers working as in-house council visit my school as part of a "post-Graduation employment day" type deal, and they all said that--at a minimum--its 5 years experience at a firm that handles litigation in some way pertinent to the business in which you want to be in-house council for. Therefore, working at a "top notch" IP law firm is likely mandatory if you want to eventually work as in-house council at a bio-tech firm, particularly if your going to be attending a T4 school (which, I might add, only puts more pressure on you to graduate within the top 5-10% of the class). Bottom line: The type of job your seeking is a long, uphill battle away.

65
General Board / Future Interests Problems
« on: October 17, 2008, 11:59:55 PM »
Can anyone label the present/future interests in these problems?

1. To A for life, then to B or his heirs;
2. To A for life, then to B or his children;
3. To A for life, then to B or his issue.

I haven't seen the "or" language in any future interest problems I've done so far, so I wanted to see if anyone had any insight.

66
General Board / Re: Can anyone answer this quick Property Question?
« on: September 28, 2008, 11:35:34 PM »
Well, the E&E says otherwise--and that's what compelled me to seek a 2nd opinion. Here is their response: "A's life estate is subject to a condition subsequent that is also a condition precedent to B's future interest, and classified as a contingent remainder because it has a condition precedent". That's the extent of their 'explanation'.

IMO this E&E is f-ing horrible. Are they correct somehow & I'm just not getting it?

67
General Board / Re: Can anyone answer this quick Property Question?
« on: September 28, 2008, 11:29:43 PM »
Because A's life estate can be divested upon the happening of an event (i.e. 'going bankrupt'), B's future interest cannot be a remainder; The life estate would not be coming to a 'natural' end. Therefore, it must be an executory interest. Agree?

68
General Board / Re: Can anyone answer this quick Property Question?
« on: September 28, 2008, 11:24:20 PM »
Ok I should have been more specific. A's present interest is a life estate subject to a condition subsequent. However, does the conditional language "but if A goes bankrupt" make B's future interest a 'contingent remainder' or an 'executory interest held in fee simple absolute'?

69
General Board / Can anyone answer this quick Property Question?
« on: September 28, 2008, 11:11:07 PM »
What are the present & future interests in this example:

"O conveys to A for life, but if A goes bankrupt, to B and his heirs" ??

70
General Board / Question about Future Interests
« on: September 28, 2008, 02:04:48 AM »
Can anyone knowledgeable about Property/Future Interests held explain this to me? The following hypo was taken from the Examples & Explanations series (which, IMO, is horribly written and explains things terribly):

"Owen transfers Blackacre to Abby for life so long as she farms Blackacre, but if she does not farm it, to Becky. What is Becky's interest. It is a remainder--that is, it succeeds the life estate, becoming possessory at Abby's death. It can also succeed sooner--upon Abby's not farming Blackacre--but that earlier termination does not turn Becky's interest into an executory one. It would if the earlier termination were the only possible way Becky's interest could end, but it is not. Abby's life estate being a determinable one does not prevent Beck's interest from being a remainder"

My understanding of executory interests and remainders are as follows: They are similar in the respect that the future interest is in a 3rd person, not the original grantor. They differ, however, in that a remainder follows the natural ending of a prior estate (i.e. for example, a plain old 'life estate'). The executory interest, on the other hand, follows the unnatural ending of a prior estate (i.e. for example, a defeasible fee estate)

THAT BEING SAID--how can the hypo above say that Becky has a remainder? The language, IMO, appears to say that Becky only gets the land if Abby does not farm the land. If she does--doesn't the original grantor retain a reversion following Abby's death? Moreover, shouldn't the future interest be classified as an executory one--that is, subject to the condition that no farming take place for Becky to get the land? I just don't understand how, based on the language of the grant, Becky succeeds to the land whether or not Abby actually does any farming. (i.e. how she gets the land at the end of Abby's life regardless of whether any farming took place). Any help on this one?


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13