The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
NEW YORK BAR AFTERMATH, PART I
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 28th, 2009 4:04 PM Author: Garnet Concupiscible Location I WALKED OUT EARLY IT WAS SO CRAZY, DID YOU TOTALLY GET THAT CONTRACTS QUESTION? WHAT ABOUT QUESTION 17 ON THE MBE, IT WAS NUTS, I PICKED B BUT C WAS A CLOSE CALL. |
 |
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:48 PM Author: grizzly abode I liked the contracts Q, since I got to use basically the only thing I knew about agency.
What didn't you like? |
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:24 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman Did you spot that Antitrust issue? Big points there, brosef. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369476) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:26 PM Author: Garnet Concupiscible Location ZOMG WHAT ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL PAPER ONE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369502) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:27 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman Not as big as the Federal Income Tax issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369507) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:42 PM Author: chocolate odious windowlicker corner The NYMC was easier than BarBri.
Some of the essays were harder than others, but none were too easy or too hard.
MPT was pretty easy.
Confident I passed today. I'm good at the MBE so tomorrow will just be a matter of sealing the deal. Phew, thank god the worst is over. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:45 PM Author: Provocative pozpig Agreed, though I just realized I fucked up that stupid trust execution issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369639) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:48 PM Author: Elite Exciting Hominid Garrison I don't anyone who feels confident in their answer for question 5.3.
Did anyone else thing the first half was easier than the second half |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:49 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert yeah, had plenty of time left over after the first half. was very rushed for the second half. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369674) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:48 PM Author: chocolate odious windowlicker corner I didn't know the exact law for a whole bunch of issues... Including that one.
But I feel like I BS'ed enough to get the points I needed, and that's all it takes. (I studied pretty hard, so I figure there's no way the majority of people knew more law than me). |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:48 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman The bad check question kinda sucked. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369671) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:50 PM Author: Elite Exciting Hominid Garrison That's the only question were I feel entirely confident in my answer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369679) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:51 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman I didn't know that writing a bad check was defined as larceny or that there was an affirmative defense for writing a good check within 10 days. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369690) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:52 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman So I just quickly said she knowingly wrote a bad check and then dealt with the defense of duress. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369698) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:57 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert thats what i did... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369732) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:58 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman Think that is enough to get a couple of points? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369748) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:00 PM Author: Elite Exciting Hominid Garrison Yup. When me my friends at lunch half the people said that was their answer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369763) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:00 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert figure if thats what most people put, the curve will make it an acceptable answer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369769) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:10 PM Author: abnormal know-it-all house i thought the rule was there is a presumption if they don't make good on it in 10 days (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370955) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:52 PM Author: chocolate odious windowlicker corner I sorta laughed when I saw it, because I knew most people would screw it up. I didn't really remember the exact law that applied either, but again, I felt like I BS'ed it sufficiently thoroughly to get enough points. Hardly anyone would have known all the law needed for that one, and tons of people must have bombed it, so I wouldn't worry about it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369699) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:48 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman How so? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369666) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:52 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman Was the trust execution issue that settlor's signature was witnessed by 2 witnesses but trustee's was witnessed by a notary? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369694) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:59 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot I thought it was more a matter of whether he was competent to create the will. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369755) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:00 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman Right -- I discussed that in the wills question. Someone mentioned something about execution of the trust. THe only issue I could think of with regard to execution of the trust was the witnessing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369768) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:02 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369780) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:05 PM Author: Provocative pozpig I said it was a totten trust, because no formal words needed for those and hence part of elective share estate.
WTF was up with that profit sharing thing? Didn't Erica specifically say not to worry about that? |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:10 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369844) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:11 PM Author: Provocative pozpig Sorry I meant that the stocks in bank account that said "when I die, give it to mom" or something like that was a totten trust. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369857) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:12 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king the stocks are payable-on-death securities. they aren't technically estate property, but they're t-subs to their full value. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369870) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:16 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369902) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:05 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert i wasnt sure but since he could change the beneficiary at any time, even to himself, i put that it was a t-sub.
life insurance is different because you can't name yourself as the beneficiary. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:58 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency actually, you can name yourself as beneficiary--it simply goes to your estate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370240) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:08 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king it's a qualified retirement account. insanely dick move on the part of BOLE. one half counts for t-sub purposes. that's how you get a nice round figure of $1.2 million. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369833) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:09 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert lol shit, i think i crossed it out on the NYH and never looked at it again because Erica fine said we didnt have to know it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369836) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:09 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse $1.2 million ftw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369837) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:10 PM Author: Provocative pozpig Looks right to me too (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369851) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:11 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse What was the actual figure though? $220,000, right? Half in half out? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369854) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:13 PM Author: Provocative pozpig Yeah that sounds familiar, then you take it all away from Mom because Son gets jack shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369872) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:13 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse BAM (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369878) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:15 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king wait, why do you take it away from mom? son gets shit because he breached the no-contest clause, but he's not a pretermitted child. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369892) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:15 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse No no, he meant you take the elective share from Mom. Mom is the only beneficiary. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369899) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:17 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king oh right. okay, we're on the same page.
hmm, i used to feel great about nailing this question and now it sounds like everyone did. curve returns me to a 5. d'oh |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:05 PM Author: abnormal know-it-all house tytyty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370912) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:13 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369873) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:41 PM Author: buff casino same, but 1/3 of 1,080,000 is 360k exactly so i second-guessed myself (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370118) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:59 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency fwiw, i followed this exact logic. 1080/3 = 360 is simple and easy enough. plus, you hear "1080" on espn all the time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370250) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:14 PM Author: Dark swashbuckling newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369884) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:19 PM Author: Aphrodisiac violent indirect expression giraffe holy shit I got it right, if you're right god I dont' know how I lucked out that much |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:13 PM Author: Dark swashbuckling newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369880) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:48 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert that was fun! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369665) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:49 PM Author: stubborn vivacious home Phew, it's a good thing I spent 6-7 days mastering Corporations and NY Practice. phew! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369676) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:53 PM Author: Elite Exciting Hominid Garrison I'm glad I spent time learning PR (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369702) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:59 PM Author: stubborn vivacious home lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369757) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 5:57 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert lulz. but a fair amount of MC questions though (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369729) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:01 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency yeah, wtf. i memorized the entire statute of limitations list, and when i got to the question about the stupid kid getting injured, i telegraphed an infancy tolling thing. but then i read the whole question, and there were no dates.
the only nyprac issue that came up (that i remember at least) in the entire thing was standards for judgment as a matter of law, which every idiot knows since 1L.
some of it was in nymc, but still. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:03 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse wait a minute, seriously, isn't the TRUST (not Wills) issue about RAP and suspension rule? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369791) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:05 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king do you think there were RAP/suspension issues? i mean yeah talk about it, but as I recall (and I have already forgotten 95% of what I written and 99% of the test), the trust document referred only to two lives in being. but you can't terminate the trust b/c the minor beneficiary can't consent.
i thought 5.3 was pretty straightforward, but maybe i just got owned |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:07 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse oh absolutely, there was no RAP and suspension issue. I meant I thought that's what they wanted us to talk about.
What was the exact call of the question again? Whether the trust is proper? |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:09 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king i think we're on the same page. was the trust proper & can the woman now revoke it. answers: yes, no. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369840) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:10 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse 1000000% on the minor can't consent thing. BUT, i did say that she can WAIT until Daughter becomes an adult. BAM. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369849) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:16 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king you owned it, son
welcome to a life of practicing law
wish i had a better reward for you |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:18 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse *is laid off by Latham* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369920) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:31 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370035) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:36 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king right, but even an irrevocable trust can be revoked if the settlor plus all beneficiaries consent. which isn't possible here cause the girl was like 12. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370079) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:38 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse exactly. doesn't matter if it is default rule, you can revoke if you have consent. BUT minor can't consent, not even through guardian.
BAM |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:51 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370195) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:07 PM Author: abnormal know-it-all house fuck i didn't know shit so i just said where it isn't specified the law presumes it to be revocable (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370937) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:28 PM Author: Dark swashbuckling newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370009) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:20 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot I don't think there was a RAP issue, but that was the main thing I wrote about, besides the trust being generally irrevocable. Totally forgot about the rule where the beneficiary can consent. Fuck. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369939) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:21 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse sweet (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369952) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:03 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency the trust created had three levels--income to T for life, then to daughter for life, and then remainder to someone else. the last interest violates RAP. i only spotted it in the last minute and got stuck in the middle of a sentence when time was called.
sadly, didn't catch the "all consent" + spendthrift rule. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:09 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370334) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:13 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency LIB is T, no? Can there be two LIBs--T and D? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370379) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:17 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370419) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:20 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse Yup, can have more than 1 life in being, as long as they're both alive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370448) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:31 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king Of course there can be two lives in being. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370566) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:33 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency good thing i didn't have time to finish the last sentence where I said Mom's interest violated RAP. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370582) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:20 PM Author: painfully honest nowag The last interest was to "several named charities" and I don't think it violated RAP, though I'm no expert. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370449) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:21 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency charity exception doesn't work--the entire chain of beneficiaries must be charities. e.g., T bequeaths to Charity A for so long as ___, then to Charity Y, then to Charity Z. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370458) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:21 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse Yeah. But you don't need it anyway. Everything is good by the end of lives in being. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370465) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:22 PM Author: painfully honest nowag Yeah, I know, but it still doesn't violate RAP. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370469) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:03 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king that wills "elective share" question was brutal. seconding the bad check thing, though; that was a dick move on the part of the BOLE. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369793) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:05 PM Author: Elite Exciting Hominid Garrison Nobody feels good about the wills question. I'm just hoping writing the rule and flailing about for a few paragraphs will be enough to carry me home (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369805) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:08 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert in the end, i didnt think it was all that bad. not like some of the practice barbri essays where i would stare at it and be completely dumbfounded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369832) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:09 PM Author: Elite Exciting Hominid Garrison Oh, Barbri essays were insane. They would test you on sub-topics that could only be found in the long outline (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369839) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:09 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse Seriously, how many people actually talked about the Bad Check legislation and the actual affirmative defenses?
Nobody that I know. I wonder why they bother testing it when 90% of the people wouldn't remember it. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:12 PM Author: Transparent Nursing Home funny thing is there was a thread on XO about bad checks like a week or two ago. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369865) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:13 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse I know.
did you talk about it? |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:14 PM Author: Transparent Nursing Home I took the bar 6 years ago so no. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369883) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:15 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse but you could have (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369894) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:05 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency was this in the barbri lecture? i remember it coming up, but for some reason, it's not in my lecture notes.
or is it something that people found in the practice essays? |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:10 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse In the NY Distinctions, a section just on Bad Check legislation (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370344) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:24 PM Author: painfully honest nowag What pisses me off is that I saw it like two days ago, thought 'hmmm interesting bad checks,' and then totally decided to not memorize it because there was too much info. Well, it doesn't really piss me off at all, but whatever. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370499) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:25 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency it's one-third of a question, man. if we eek out 1 point, i'm happy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370507) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:26 PM Author: painfully honest nowag Word. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370516) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:32 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse 100% true.
I was reading the NY Distinctions, and I thought to myself: why would BarBri bother to write a whole fucking section on "bad check law"?
Well, this is fucking why. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:15 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot What does the Mother get in Question 5.3? I nailed the analysis for Spouse, but was lost to spot the issue for Mom. I just said she gets Specific and general bequests. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369900) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:16 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse "the rest" BAM |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:16 PM Author: Dark swashbuckling newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369909) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:17 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse exactly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369917) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:18 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot Was she the residuary? Fuck, I was rushed for time after spending the entire time doing the elective share analysis, so I said the Son gets any partial intestacy thats left over (had no idea if there was anything leftover). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369919) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:19 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369934) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:21 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot The Son, even if DQ's from the Will, can take under Intestacy through the anti-lapse statute.
In intestacy Intestacy rules control, not Wills.
p.s. Oh yeah, none of the exceptions applied. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:22 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse seriously? There is no anti-lapse issue. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:23 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot Yup, but ONLY when there's a partial intestacy. Like I said earlier, I had to skim over the facts because I spent like 2 hours on the MPT.
People here are saying that the residuary was left to Mom in the Will, so there would be no partial intestacy. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:23 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse yeah, no way. there was a residual beneficiary. But if not, you're right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369968) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:23 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king yeah, but the guy didn't die intestate. he died with a will that said, son gets $100 and nothing if he contests; mom gets the rest. so spouse takes $1.2m as her elective share, son gets nothing.
also, anti-lapse statute? |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:25 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot Like I said, anti-lapse can save even a disinhereted child IF there is partial intestacy. That was NOT the case in this fact pattern. But that's wha tI wrote. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369985) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:26 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse Yes albrecht is right. If there is no residual beneficiary, the rest goes to intestacy and the Son takes. BUT, it doesn't matter since there was a residual beneficiary (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369990) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:56 PM Author: multi-colored crystalline double fault hissy fit I don't know anything about what was on the bar exam, but I thought New York recognizes negative disinheritance. You can say "whatever happens, X doesn't get anything!" Then X can't take even under partial intestacy. (This is a NY distinction.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12372080) |
|
Date: October 8th, 2009 6:45 PM Author: Black theatre Mom and Spouse were two different people. No? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12939738) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:24 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369977) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:28 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot It was in Erica's outline. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370013) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:40 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman Except he wouldn't take because the father made it very clear his desire to disinherit his son (or at least limit his recovery). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370107) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:06 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency if there's partial intestacy, it's not clear why donative intent would have any effect--you apply intestacy rules, no? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370302) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:33 PM Author: Primrose gaming laptop church building But there was no partial intestacy! Mommy gets the residuary.
And someone said that Spouse's elective share is $1.2 mil, which it definitely isn't. It's like $400K or so.
Oh that the seat belt issue in the construction pit case?? jeez!
http://www.nysgtsc.state.ny.us/seat-vt.htm Scroll down to point #8.
F*ck Bar Bri.
On the plus side, I am glad I memorized WOSSUPP. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:42 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert yes, i think I got like $440k or something. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371257) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:21 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king no, none of the exceptions applied, although i recited a few anyway just to, i don't know, suck BOLE cock or something for a (hoped-for) half point (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369945) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:22 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369960) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:25 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king i think i said the mom gets them, but honestly i didn't delve deeply here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369981) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:27 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot Yeah can you sum up how the stocks are treated?
I said they were a specific gift to Mom and are not adeemed. Clearly the wron answer. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:09 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king you're fine, i'm the idiot who didn't know the goddamn seatbelt rule
argh |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:11 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370353) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:14 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370338 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370386) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:20 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king i have bad news and good news for you
the bad news is, you cost yourself a point
the good news is, you are lightyears ahead of most test-takers on this question, and we're all only posting in this thread because we're Wills Nerdz, so I think you still end up with like an 8 curved. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:18 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king she gets the rest, after she's done paying her son's fuckbuddy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369928) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:21 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/realestate/26hunt.html?_r=1
BAM |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:24 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse Okay, seriously (people respond): who actually talked about the proper Bad Check law and the affirmative defenses (write good check in 10 days, etc)? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369979) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:25 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot I kinda fumbled around saying she wrote a good check so is not liable becaues it negates mens rea. But didn't state the rule. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369986) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:27 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse I said she didn't intend to permanently deprive. That seemed to be the answer to every larceny / robbery question I ever saw so I thought that's got to be worth 5 points. lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370004) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:27 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king here's what i wrote. "the elements are writing a check knowing you don't have the money." then i said she did then. then i disavowed the relevance of depositing later as failing to negate the mental state. that's right: i said the opposite of the law. so, not feeling great, there. but at least i invented some bad-check elements that actually correspond to two of the real elements. so i hope that gets me some partial credit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12369997) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:27 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert nope. said she knowingly wrote a bad check knowing it wasn't going to be honored upon presentment, or something like that. but she could claim duress. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370006) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:29 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370023) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:30 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king i hope this is enough to get a 5-equivalent on this question.
what did people say for "did the guy commit larceny?" i said, no intent, he thought it belonged to him, but now i feel sort of bad about that answer. in general, aside from the commercial paper bit at the end, i feel sort of shitty about that Q. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:32 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert i was like WTF to that question. so i wrote, no, went through larceny elements but wrote at the end he mightve committed menacing, lol. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370043) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:33 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse na man, EXTORTION is larceny under New York Law (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370053) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:44 PM Author: Provocative pozpig Think I get partial credit for saying "he's not guilty of larceny but is guilty of extortion"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370151) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:46 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse BAM, golden
Haha, because that's what I wrote. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:09 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency lolcopter--i wrote that it was larceny in the fifth degree in the beginning, and then said his conduct is kind've like robbery, but the threat wasn't immediate, so it's probably extortion, but extortion isn't larceny (except that it actually is).
i feel sorry for the person grading this shit. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:11 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse I think you're golden. I did the same thing - almost robbery, not quite (same reason duress won't work for Ann). More like extortion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370352) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:13 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370372) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:15 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse yeah, I said claim of right is an affirmative defense (it is in New York). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370391) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:18 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370425) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:18 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse Affirmative defense in NY. In the ny distinctions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370433) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:23 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370480) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:23 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse No way. Even if they are, the people who care enough to post in this thread are probably in the upper 20% of all NY Bar takers. Nobody here will fail. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370490) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:24 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency the upper 20% of NY bar takers is not an elite group, although I (and everyone else) appreciate the compliment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370500) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:25 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370508) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:26 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse No it's not, especially if you take into account the TTT and LLMs. I'm just saying it's far more enough to pass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370515) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:35 PM Author: Primrose gaming laptop church building OK so I was pretty sure it wasn't larceny but I didn't know what it was.
So I reached for "menacing."
And for defenses I put duress and necessity..because the check-bouncer chick prevented a greater harm. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:34 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse Extortion is larceny under New York law. what a fucking dick move (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370066) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:42 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king jesus
i'm going to fail
i fucked up every part of that question except commercial paper and probably that too |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:38 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman I said that even if he had no claim of right, he had no right to use force. Thus, liability. So I think I discussed extortion without discussing extortion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370093) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:40 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse No, but he didn't use force.
Force = robbery. Immediate threat of harm = robbery Future threat of harm = extortion
Doesn't matter anyway |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:30 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse duress ftfuckingw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370031) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:31 PM Author: Dark swashbuckling newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370034) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:32 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse yeah she can't succeed, but I said she can raise it.
obviously that's not what they're looking for anyway: there are official affirmative defenses under the Bad Check law. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:34 PM Author: Dark swashbuckling newt word up.
I had no idea about the Bad Check law - I was just sticking to Crim law defenses. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:35 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king yeah i said duress was a close call but she could maybe try it, but at any rate i think mentioning duress at all gets you like a third of a point, so we should be grateful for that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370076) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:33 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert noticed that so wrote that if she reasonably believed he might hurt her today if she didnt write check, etc (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370050) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:37 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king same (re: maybe today)
wow, we all just wrote the same shit
hopefully this means we all pass together
or fail, like idiots, for not memorizing the bad check law. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:18 PM Author: grizzly abode No duress because no threat of IMMEDIATE harm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371623) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:34 PM Author: grizzly abode (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371814) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:37 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370084) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:38 PM Author: Confused shivering black woman That's what I did -- no duty to supervise kids, so properly dismissed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370099) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:40 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse BAM (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370111) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:39 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse "NY no negligent supervision claim, blah blah blah"
All I said |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:15 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370401) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:34 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king This is what I wrote.
Dude, we're too in our heads. We gotta get the fuck out of this thread. Guess what: you need 4s and 5s to pass. Did you do that? of course you did. Did you fuck stuff up? Sure. Did you get half the stuff wrong? You bet. More than half on a couple of those essays? Me too, brotha. Guess what: cut it loose, it's over. FWIW, I didn't even think the NYMC were as easy as everyone did. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:38 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370624) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:40 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency we'll party together, although you'll have the ccn thing going for you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370642) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:39 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king i fucked this up, but realized it too late. i did what you did. but what we were supposed to do is realize that new york has eliminated "negligent supervision" as a cause of action, so there's no world in which the kid can sue the mom, so there's no world in which the mom is liable on contribution
i literally realized this while i was rebooting my computer
sooo, don't feel great about that one either |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:40 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370109) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:41 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert had no idea of this either. oh well! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370124) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:12 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency there was a barbri essay directly on this point. i remember during practice actually going through the negligence analysis for 10-15 minutes, and when i read the model answer, it was a 2-sentence pos "no negligent supervision in NY."
at least it worked out. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:36 PM Author: grizzly abode I said no negligent supervision, but she could be liable for her own negligence.... but I guess not to the kid, oops. I was thinking of that MC Q where the mom left a kid in a car and he banged up someone's car with a shopping cart... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371834) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:59 PM Author: multi-colored crystalline double fault hissy fit I don't know anything about the bar exam, but I know that negligent supervision is NOT vicarious liability but instead IS the parent's own negligence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12372118) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:42 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370134) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:44 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert i wrote some shit about no-fault and maybe sue in tort for serious injury but contributory negligence so whatever he recovers reduced by percentage of contributory negligence (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370145) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:07 PM Author: Comical queen of the night ladyboy pretend like i didn't just edit out a retarded post (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370309) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:44 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse na man.
it's in the NY distinctions, another dick move.
Not wearing seatbelt can ONLY be taken into account for damages, not negligence. And it's an affirmative defense. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:48 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king fuck fuck fuck |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:49 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert well as long as you wrote some coherent shit with some legal rules in it, im sure it'll be fine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370188) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:51 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king i'm dead, i know it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370199) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:54 PM Author: Dark swashbuckling newt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370220) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:56 PM Author: irradiated meetinghouse philosopher-king i'm doomed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370231) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:00 PM Author: Provocative pozpig Where is that rule? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370257) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:08 PM Author: Dark swashbuckling newt its the unspoken rule of BOLE....shhh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370319) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:10 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse See below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370339) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:09 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse It's in there somewhere. But e.g., NYT, Torts MC, answer 6.
"New York Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1229-c(8) requires that defendant plead failure to use the sea belt as an affirmative defense before evidence in mitigation of damages may be introduced." |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:09 PM Author: Comical queen of the night ladyboy how so? NY is a pure comparative negligence state...relevant on damages after you talk about the no fault crap...what am i missing here? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370326) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:10 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse The rule that question really tests on is:
"e.g., NYT, Torts MC, answer 6.
"New York Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1229-c(8) requires that defendant plead failure to use the sea belt as an affirmative defense before evidence in mitigation of damages may be introduced.""
I JUST happened to read it yesterday, that's why I remember. Bizarre. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:14 PM Author: Comical queen of the night ladyboy weak sauce. hopefully i'll get credit for it anyway. a lot of the "model answers" from the old bar exams are similarly stupid. there was one where a process server left a summons at a doorstep after yelling through the door that was just slammed in his face that he was gonna do that. one of the models said service was bad because he didn't mail it to the last known address/send aff service to ct in 20 days *prays* |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:14 PM Author: Aggressive antidepressant drug for someone with such a stupid moniker, you're tearing this thread up sonn (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370384) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:15 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse lol
ty |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:17 PM Author: Aggressive antidepressant drug yw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370415) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:43 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert HOW ABOUT THESE FUCKING BRACELETS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370136) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:46 PM Author: buff casino AND THAT LOUD ASS SPEAKER SYSTEM
PLEASE TO GO FUCK YOURSELF |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:48 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370182) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 6:52 PM Author: stubborn vivacious home 180 if the guy randomly lapses into german and someone yells "DAS FEUHRER!!" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370205) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:13 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency we're supposed to shower with these shits? wtf.
i bet it's a disciplinary rule violation if you cut it off and tape it back on. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:16 PM Author: Comical queen of the night ladyboy i saw a torn off one on the ground outside the test center during lunch (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370408) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:19 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency the technical term is "corpse" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370439) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:21 PM Author: Comical queen of the night ladyboy i wonder what the story on it was. maybe someone had a meltdown and just left? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370461) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:22 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse My friend saw one last year. Guy ripped off his wristband after first day, outside the center. Supposed he looked pissed off as fuck. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370473) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:23 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency person could be taking mbe in another state if doing two bars. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370491) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:26 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse True true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370521) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:00 PM Author: Comical queen of the night ladyboy anyone see that awkward lookin kid fall out of his chair onto the floor? he was flopping around on the ground like a beached fish. some foreign bitch tried to rescue him, but ending up dropping him back on the ground for more floppage. totally made my day (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370262) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:15 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency more details please. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370399) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:18 PM Author: Comical queen of the night ladyboy that was basically it - 1C he looked like the kind of guy you imagine would go to law school |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:19 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse lololol. I heard about it. More details please. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:26 PM Author: Comical queen of the night ladyboy that's all i saw. that and everyone around him snickering/scoffing. i was wonding if it ended up fucking up his game for the rest of the exam (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370513) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:27 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370528) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:28 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency i wonder if it fukd up other people's game, i.e., they think maybe they'll be next. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370537) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:08 PM Author: abnormal know-it-all house i have to admit right after it happened i checked my chair to make sure it wasn't fucked up (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370945) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:06 PM Author: abnormal know-it-all house i saw this shit. some azn on roids was openly laughing at him right to his face while he was on the floor. great lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370919) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:25 PM Author: Comical queen of the night ladyboy yes, that was fucking rich. where do you sit? what do you look like? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371117) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:28 PM Author: abnormal know-it-all house fuck your mouth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371136) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:07 PM Author: 180 sanctuary main people anyone see or hear about the guy that had a t-bone steak in his plastic bag? wtf was he thinking? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370931) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:12 PM Author: abnormal know-it-all house what? flame though i did see a maxi pad. the girl was fat |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:13 PM Author: 180 sanctuary main people the dude had a fully marinated steak in his fucking bag with tin foil. it was wild. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370990) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:21 PM Author: abnormal know-it-all house did you get to see him eat it? did he have silverware as well? or did he just eat it with his hands like an animal? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371073) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:29 PM Author: 180 sanctuary main people i didnt see him eat it. he just had it half open on top of his laptop bag next to the largest engery drink i have ever seen. oddly, it wasn't funny to me at the time. i just noted that the dude had a fucking steak as a quiet snack and continued with my exam. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371149) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:44 PM Author: Dark swashbuckling newt Tomorrow, i will eat a candy bar with a fork and knife to throw people off their game. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371290) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:15 PM Author: Idiotic Stage Pervert gotta get out of this thread... knowing what i screwed up doesnt do any good. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370393) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:29 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse Okay found the real "seatbelt" law.
It's in Torts, NY Distinctions, page 5, under "Express Assumption of Risk"
"Furthermore, in motor vehicle accidents where the plaintiff has failed to make use of an available seat belt, the trier of fact may consider nonuse in mitigation of damages but not as evidence on the issue of liability. Failure to use a seat belt is an affirmative defense."
It's completely retarded to ask it though, because 90% of the people just wouldn't remember it and would write comparative negligence anyway. They may as well just write a comparative negligence question.
I only remember it because Torts NY Distinctions was the last thing I ever read on the bar exam. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:30 PM Author: Contagious frisky boistinker theater 90% of the people in the room are going to be TTT PI lawyers and ID lawyers -- the sorts who need to know motor vehicle laws backwards and forwards. There should be more questions like that and not less. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370560) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:33 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370583) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:31 PM Author: Comical queen of the night ladyboy another observation - all of the girls wearing clothes emblazoned with their school names were ugly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370574) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:35 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse I thought there were some hot girls with nice asses. More than my fucking pathetic law school crowd (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370605) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:37 PM Author: Comical queen of the night ladyboy yeah i saw a lot of hot girls there as well. the ones in gym clothes were quite nice (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370618) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:41 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse so fucking credited.
This girl was wearing FUCKING tight black pants. I could clearly see her entire thong. How can that be comfortable to write an exam in? |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:04 PM Author: abnormal know-it-all house yeah man. i saw this blonde bimbo in spandex capri pants that clearly wasn't wearing any underwear. the OUTLINE OF HER VAG WAS RIGHT THERE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370909) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:11 PM Author: Azure background story trailer park I saw a chick that had a turquoise g-string coming out the back of her jeans, and she was gross. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370973) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:37 PM Author: Titillating Brunch National Security Agency very much agree, although i guess when you have 12k people, you're focusing on raw number rather than percentages (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370623) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:36 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370614) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:50 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio
|
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:52 PM Author: Irate flickering clown whorehouse you'll be fine, bro. nobody in this thread will fail. I can almost guarantee it. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 7:52 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370772) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:05 PM Author: Scarlet Dragon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370911) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:06 PM Author: Transparent Nursing Home plenty of XO posters have failed in the past few years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370925) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:07 PM Author: Turquoise liquid oxygen rigpig soooo NY mult choice was definitely better than I expected but I know a few I got wrong. Oh well. I think I did well enough on that
Oh man, some stuff I really knew well on the essays and some stuff I think I botched.
The T-subs thing -- holy crap. I really wanted a t-subs Q but something in there was wrong. The tenancy by the entirety was half in half out, right? because I was tempted to go against what I learned/memorized to make it a nice round number of $1500k but I think something else was halved that I put in as a whole?
Hopefully I'll get partial credit on that
Also, I felt like I had plenty of time on the morning section but was really rushed for time on the afternoon. I hope my MPT is decent enough
Did you guys see the ridiculous line for the ladies room before the morning session? |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:14 PM Author: abnormal know-it-all house fuck man. the value of the TE half goes back in when computing the elective share? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371000) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:19 PM Author: Turquoise liquid oxygen rigpig I'm pretty sure if it's something shared with the surviving spouse you put half in (because the spouse already had the other half) and then take half out from what the elective share is after you calculate the 1/3 because the surviving spouse gets it automatically
ex: the survivorship estate is $200. you add in $100 to the elective share estate. then you take 1/3 of whatever it is for the spouse's elective share. then you subtract $100 from that amount to see what the spouse would get because spouse already gets the $100 you added in by default due to the survivorship part...
is that right? |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:35 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot Spouse takes half of survivorship estate for Testamentary Subs purposes. I knew this rule but didn't have time to write about it, or about the Spenthrit Trusts rule for the Trust. Fuck fuck fuck.
|
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:37 PM Author: Turquoise liquid oxygen rigpig i was looking for a spendthrift issue but i dont remember if i spotted one or wrote about it.
what was the spendthrift thing? |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:39 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot I mean you'd just write a blurb that all income interests from trusts are protected under the Spendthrift rule, so the child's interest would be protected from claims of all creditors. Just a generic freebie point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371232) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:10 PM Author: Azure background story trailer park Wow,wish I never read this thread. Missed: seatbelt rule, no child supervision, didn't answer trust question, and didn't get the right number on the elective share. Nailed bad check and extortion though... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370961) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:12 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot Did anyone else start writing the MPT essay first on the Question 1 ExamSoft shit, and then catch their mistake? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12370981) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:19 PM Author: abnormal know-it-all house i gave myself 90 min at the end and fucked it up badly, ran out of time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371043) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:20 PM Author: Elite Exciting Hominid Garrison What are you talking about? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371064) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:37 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot The ExamSoft software had a clear Essay Quesiton # label. So it would say "Question 1" at the top, and you'd have to write Essay Q 1.
The MPT similarly had "MPT Answer" at the top. So if you wrote the answer to the MPT in the space for "Question 4" that would mean you're writing in the wrong section and could cause serious problems, e.g. you'd have written the wrong essay for the answer files. |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:47 PM Author: Sexy Factory Reset Button Space in the afternoon session, out of the 3 tab/labels, which one was the mpt one? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371326) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:02 PM Author: Arousing digit ratio (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371457) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:07 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot MPT was the 3rd and final one.
I'm not quite sure what BOLE will do, I mean they could probably figure out you wrote the answer in the wrong page... |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:25 PM Author: Turquoise liquid oxygen rigpig no, i did the MPT last and totally wished i had more time. i freaked out even more because I thought we were ending at 4:30 and not 4:45 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371116) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:38 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot I did exact opposite. Did MPT first, spent around 2 hours on it, got jacked up on the Wills Question, which pisses me off b/c I knew that shit cold. Definitely cost me points, fuck. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371220) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:40 PM Author: Out-of-control Lake Idiot Those of you who felt good about the NYMC, did you guys actually do practice NYMC questions? I only did about 50, and didn't have a clue for most of the questions... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371236) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:43 PM Author: Azure background story trailer park I didn't do any NYMC and felt really good about it. Wish I felt the same about questions 4 and 5 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371273) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:01 PM Author: Elite Exciting Hominid Garrison Agreed those last two essays were like a knife to the stomach. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371440) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:11 PM Author: Turquoise liquid oxygen rigpig hopefully that means the curve will be easy? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371541) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:43 PM Author: kink-friendly flesh heaven you fags, stop discussing answers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371271) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 8:59 PM Author: citrine masturbator tattoo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371430) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:09 PM Author: Infuriating cracking set cuckold dude you better fix your computer for the 2nd bar day so it doesn't click on threads you didn't want to look at automatically without you touching while you're in the middle of an essay (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371524) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:20 PM Author: Transparent Nursing Home In the old days this would have been a 500+ post thread already. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371649) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 9:33 PM Author: Infuriating cracking set cuckold not IT-FUCKING-E (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12371805) |
|
Date: July 28th, 2009 11:25 PM Author: Light stead fuck you guys. i just went from "pretty sure i'm going to pass" to "absolutely-fucking-sure i'm going to fail."
FUCK YOU ALL. |
|
Date: July 29th, 2009 3:58 AM Author: Saffron slap-happy boltzmann I just looked at the NY Essay from the exam I took. I did well on 4 of the 5, but it appears that I likely bombed one. I still passed. MBE 159.5 scaled (like a 146 raw out of 190). Kill the MBE and you'll be fine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1052183&forum_id=2#12374570) |