Memoirs of a Bar Examinee

[pikey]

Well, the way it was designed was to allow the national government to do certain things that would be inefficient for each state to do (e.g., national defense), while leaving everything else for the states.  The thought is that because the U.S. is so large, leaving things for each state will allow the states--and thus the country--to be more responsive to their residents.  But as time went on, the national gov't usurped increasingly more power (esp. during the Roosevelt years), yet there is still a belief among Americans that the smaller units know best.  And I think there is something to be said for that.  Especially the experimentation function.  If one state successfully innovates, then the others have an incentive to copy.  Like corporations law.  It's surprisingly uniform because each state has the incentive to attract businesses.  Yet, if the national gov't were to regulate all corporate law, it would likely not be nearly as efficient, since there wouldn't have been 50 experiments to see what was right.

Tell me, do you think London or Bermuda knows what's best for Bermudians?

Bermuda is a whole seperate country.  Georgia is not. 

[A.]

Each state is considered sovereign, though.

[pikey]

Each state is considered sovereign, though.

That's the part that I don't get.  I understand different countries being sovereign (ie Scotland in the UK), but different states?  It almost doesn't make sense!

[A.]

Lol.  You know, I guess I never thought about its coherence to outsiders.  But yeah, the federal gov't can force the states to do only so much, mainly by conditioning funding on meeting certain requirements or passing a law under the pretense of regulating interstate commerce.  Otherwise, the states are largely free to do what they want.

[A.]

Each state is considered sovereign, though.

That's the part that I don't get.  I understand different countries being sovereign (ie Scotland in the UK), but different states?  It almost doesn't make sense!

But thank god for it!  The people of MA want different laws than the people of AL.

Lol, and trust me...the people of AL want different laws from the people of MA.

[cui bono?]

LOL @ this thread...sounds like fun I can't wait 

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Dear future bar applicants,


Day 2. Property. 

Oh joyous property.  How do we love thee. Let us count the ways.....

Let's not and say we did.  Today we did the property test.  Got 15 out of 50.  HA again!   I love it!  This is an eye opening experience.  Although, I must say, that as I was going through the property questions, I actually did know the answers at one point, and even if I couldn't get the correct answer I still fully understood what was going on in each question, knew what the issue was, and could narrow it down between one of two answers.  Unlike Contracts, which I effectively learned for the first time ever on Monday, May 14th, 2007.

So kudos to my property professor, although I'm sure she's too old school to be reading this site, but props to her nonetheless.  Out of the 50 questions, there were maybe 2 or 3 that we did not cover in my property class (eg. riparian water rights - heard of it, didn't care enough to research it on my own).

And yes there were a few questions on the R.A.P. but I was surprised to see that they didn't test the Rule in the usual way that you see (with respect to contingent remainders) but instead they tested the Rule in a fact pattern dealing with  a conveyance that had a right of first refusal option.  Yeah.      Basically all you need to know is that any such option to purchase land in the future that lasts longer than 21 years is in violation of the R.A.P.   


And as promised, the Property MBE question of the day, again one of the so very few that I got correct. This one is on Landlord/Tenant issues, so you 0L's may know the answer just from common experience, and if you don't, it's good to know for your own information anyway, so here it is:



Lucia Zarella was a third-year law student at Stetson.  In November, Lucia broke up with her boyfriend and moved out of his apartment.  Thereupon, Lucia entered into a written lease with Bobby Buffet to rent a small bungalow in St. Petersburg for a term of eight months at a rental of $1,000 to be payable on the first day of each month.

Lucia occupied the bungalow through the end of July while she prepared for the Florida Bar Exam.  During the leasehold period, Lucia fully complied with the terms of the lease and made her monthly rental payments on schedule.  Following the bar exam at the end of July, Lucia decided to stay on and continue to occupy the bungalow.  She proceeded to pay Bobby the $1,000 rental for August and September and marked her checks "August rental" and "September rental."

On September 15th, Bobby received an offer from a prospective buyer who is interested in purchasing the bungalow currently occupied by Lucia.  The buyer has indicated that he is only interested in consumating the deal if he can move into the bungalow immediately.

On September 15th Bobby consults with his attorney and inquires how quickly he can terminate Lucia's tenancy if he gives her notice that very day.  Bobby's attorney should advise him that such notice properly served on Lucia on September 15th will terminate her leasehold interest on


(A) September 15th
(B) September 30th
(C) October 15th
(D) October 31st

[A.]

I'm going to say D.  She has a month-to-month lease, so I'm thinking she should get at least one more full month after the end of the current period (September 30).  Alternatively, C.

Btw, riparian rights are fun .

[slacker]

Dear future bar applicants,


Day 2. Property. 

Oh joyous property.  How do we love thee. Let us count the ways.....

Let's not and say we did.  Today we did the property test.  Got 15 out of 50.  HA again!   I love it!  This is an eye opening experience.  Although, I must say, that as I was going through the property questions, I actually did know the answers at one point, and even if I couldn't get the correct answer I still fully understood what was going on in each question, knew what the issue was, and could narrow it down between one of two answers.  Unlike Contracts, which I effectively learned for the first time ever on Monday, May 14th, 2007.

I feel much the same. I didn't finish the questions today; I've got a few other things going on and just didn't make it to that point. When going through the answers, though, nothing was completely new even if I didn't always (or less than half on the ones I finished) pick the right one.

Tomorrow, for me, Crim.

[«ě»]

Smells like B to me. Although she has a month-to-month lease, they have no commitment for October and I can't see how the month-to-month factor would affect when the contract is terminated in a period that hasn't been paid for.

edit;

Q: When Must a Property Owner Use a Thirty (30) Day Notice?
A: To terminate a month to month tenancy. To raise the rent 10% or less of the lowest rent over the past twelve months for a month to month tenancy. To change any terms of a month to month rental agreement. Neither tenants or property owners have to state a reason to terminate tenancy. Property owners do not have to state a reason to raise the rent or change the terms of the rental agreement.

So, using more than my 1.5 minute I guess C is more appropriate:p

Issue; 30-days notice necessary, means October 15th earliest
Month-to-month not an issue, as there is no commitment for October, so October 31st is out.