The Bar Exam
Here are some actual questions from the bar exam...
The Bar Exam
Instructions: You have 5 minutes to answer the following 200 questions. Please read each question thoroughly and carefully. You will not be given additional time. Use only a number 2 pencil. If you need to leave the testing center for any reason, please raise your hand and a proctor will tear up your exam and confiscate your driver’s license. If you finish your exam before time expires, you’ve probably failed and brought shame upon your family. Good luck!
Contracts
Buyer wrote a letter to Seller, a manufacturer of widgets. The letter requested a price quotation for 1000 widgets, and was mailed May 1. Seller received the letter on May 3. Before Seller had a chance to respond, Buyer sent another letter on May 5 rescinding the request for a price quotation. The second letter was sent by uncertified carrier pigeon, and arrived on May 10. In the meantime, Seller sent a fax to Buyer on May 7 with the price quotation and a note stating “I will enjoy doing business with you.” Buyer replied by telegram on May 8, and stated “The deal is acceptable. Will take 1000 widgets at $100 per widget.” However, the telegram company negligently transmitted the message, which inadvertently read, “The deal is unacceptable. Will take 100 widgets at $1000 per widget.” Before Seller received the telegram, he sent an insured letter by overnight Fedex on May 9, stating, “I hereby rescind all offers. I look forward to working with you. It’s a deal.” Buyer then personally telephoned Seller on May 11, announcing his unequivocal intention not to pay for the widgets. Seller disagreed and orally reaffirmed the contract. On May 15, Buyer and Seller met in person and exchanged blank pieces of paper, but did not say anything to one another.
Assume for purposes of this question only that Seller has been in business for 15 years and is familiar with all trade usages in his respective field. Assume further that on May 16th, Seller received a letter from Other, with an offer to purchase 500 widgets at $500 per widget, to be delivered F.O.B., C.O.D., “inclusive of all freight and shipping charges, but only if the widgets are delivered before June 1”. Assume further that Buyer was aware of the letter from Other to Seller, and that Buyer is Other’s estranged brother and longtime business partner. Assume that Seller then sent a fax to Buyer with another price quotation and the statement, “I will never do business with you. The contract is acceptable.”
Question 1: According to common law contract principles, do Buyer and Seller have a valid contract?
a) Yes, but only if Buyer was a “merchant” as defined by the U.C.C. and was NOT a “merchant” as defined under common law.
b) No, because all contracts for the sale of widgets must be on lined 8.5X14 paper, signed by both parties, witness by two independent unbiased witnesses, stamped with a federally-approved seal of authenticity and deposited with the registrar of contracts at the local county office. In any event, the “mailbox rule” prevents the formation of contracts by facsimile or teletype device.
c) No, unless the carrier pigeon company consented.
d) Yes.
Torts
Owner owned a 30 acre tract of land called Explosionacre, where he engaged in dangerous excavation and blasting activities involving dynamite and small nuclear bombs. In addition, the southwest corner of Explosionacre housed Owner’s collection of exotic pets, including five lions, three tigers, and four bears (oh my!). The lions had been de-fanged, the tigers de-clawed, and the bears were extremely old in bear years. On the northwest corner of Explosionacre, Owner had inexpertly built a large swimming pool, with a negligently installed diving board, and recklessly installed slide, and a wantonly installed water polo net. Owner had put up conspicuous signs around the pool alerting trespassers of the dangers, but was also aware that the adjacent lot was home to the School for Curious Illiterate Troublemakers (SCIT), and that children regularly trespassed onto his property in order to play in the pool. In order to prevent such intrusions onto his property, Owner purchased two alligators and released them into the pool. On the northeast corner of Explosionacre, Owner’s widget factory produced 10,000 highly toxic, radioactive flammable widgets, which were stored in unsafe conditions in an adjacent warehouse. Additionally, Owner sometimes used the property for his Blind Hunters Club meetings, where local blind men and women could practice their sharpshooting.
One day, Sarah wandered onto Explosionacre with the intent to play in Owner’s pool, and pet her favorite tiger, Roosevelt. While using the diving board, an explosion from the blasting activities loosened two screws holding the diving board in place. As Sarah began to fall into the pool, the two alligators simultaneously leapt to devour her, but became entangled in the water polo net. While struggling to free themselves, they knocked the slide into the pool, causing a wave which propelled Sarah upward. An extremely bad storm then whipped Sarah up into the air and across the property into the tiger cage. Roosevelt the tiger came up to Sarah and, intending to rescue her, accidentally broke her left leg in his jaw. Seeing fresh blood, the lions immediately began to fight over the fallen body of Sarah, but were scared off when several blind hunters began firing in their direction. One of the bullets, due to a defective design in the gun, veered to the left and struck Sarah in the right arm. Subsidence caused by the excavations then caused the tiger cage to sink and partially open, allowing Sarah to crawl to the safety of the widget factory. Guard, an independent contractor hired by Owner but paid by Owner’s closely-held S-corporation, was asleep at his post and did not notice the trespassing girl. Inside the widget factory, Sarah attempted to open a widget, thinking that it was food. Instead, the flammable liquid inside the widget exploded, burning Sarah’s hair and eyebrows, and rendering her partially blind in one eye. The other eye was gouged out by a shard of metal from the widget container. In addition, toxic fumes from the exploded widget entered Sarah’s lungs, causing respiratory problems and a slight headache. As Sarah stumbled out of the factory, she tripped over the sleeping Guard and fell to the ground, fracturing her collarbone. Also, a chainsaw which Guard had negligently placed on the roof of the factory fell on Sarah, severing her limbs and causing lacerations to her face and torso. Sarah was then eaten by the bears.
Question 2: In an action by Sarah’s parents against Owner, who will prevail?
a) Owner, because Sarah assumed the risk by befriending a tiger.
b) Sarah, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.
c) Owner, but only if he had constructive notice of the loose screws in the pool, actual knowledge of the widget’s design defects, inquiry notice of the lions’ dangerous propensities, and record notice of the terms of the SCIT’s lease.
d) Roosevelt.
Criminal Law
Bob hated his neighbor, Bill. Late one night, Bob entered Bill’s house through an open window, carrying a gun and a can of gasoline. Bob poured the gasoline around the bed where Bill and his wife were sleeping. The noise woke up Bill’s wife, who ran into the bathroom, locking the door. Bob then noticed a watch on Bill’s nightstand and decided to take it. As he reached over for it, Bill awoke. Bob was frightened, and unreasonably but honestly believed that Bill was trying to lunge at him. Bob fired 3 shots. One bullet ricocheted off Bill’s watch and was deflected through the bathroom door into Bill’s wife’s heart, killing her instantly. The second bullet hit Bill in the face, causing only minor injuries. The third bullet knocked over a lit kerosene lamp, which ignited the gasoline. The fire blackened, but did not char, Bill’s bedroom.
Question 3: Of what crimes can Bob be convicted?
I. Larceny of Bill’s watch.
II. Robbery of Bill’s watch.
III. False imprisonment of Bill’s wife.
IV. Arson of Bill’s house.
V. Involuntary manslaughter of Bill.
VI. Attempted murder of Bill’s wife.
VII. Conspiracy to murder Bill.
VIII. Embezzlement.
a) I, II, III, IV, but not VI, VII, or VIII.
b) II, VI, I, V, but not V, I, II, or VI.
c) VII, I, IV, IX, XIII, but not LXVII, MCMVIII, or II
d) Some of the above.
Constitutional Law
A new Federal law provides for the following:
Any non-pregnant Episcopalian female military officer, irrespective of race, who engages in non-violent protest using signs, banners, or megaphones, within 50 feet of any abortion clinic, mosque, or the headquarters of the NAACP, on weekdays (excluding federal holidays), shall be dishonorably discharged from the military, shall spend no more than 6 (but less than 10) months in jail, shall be fined no less than $1000.00 (but more than $1001.00), and shall have her driver’s license revoked for a period not to exceed the remainder of her natural life.
In the state of Idahoming, a state statute provides:
Any African-American Christian military or police officer (irrespective of gender), who engages in abusive or harassing conduct, using placards, posters, microphone and/or amplifier devices, within 47 feet of any medical facility, hospital and/or long term care nursing facility, synagogue, or the headquarters of the KKK, on any Mondays, Tuesdays or Fridays (including federal holidays, but excluding state holidays) which fall within the first 13 calendar days within any month (excluding February and July), shall be honorably discharged from service, shall spend no more than 10 (but less than 6) months in jail, shall be fined a maximum of $12.00, and shall have their state welfare benefits terminated both for themselves and for any dependents.
Militant Lesbian, a non-pregnant Buddhist, was arrested by Federal law enforcement agents 48 feet from the Baby Butcher Abortion Clinic in downtown Idahoming City, for chanting religiously uplifting but sexually explicit slogans at schoolchildren passing by.
Question 4: If Militant Lesbian challenges the constitutionality of the Federal law, she will:
a) lose, because the state law pre-empts Federal law in cases where Congress, through the dormant commerce clause, has sought to occupy less than the entire “field”, and militant lesbians are within the “zone” of persons intended to be protected by such statutes.
b) lose, unless the Supreme Court agrees that her case is not moot due to the state law, that she does not lack proper standing, that her situation constitutes as “case or controversy” as articulated by prior caselaw, that the amount of her claim is greater than $75,000, and that her case is “ripe” (but not “spoiled”).
c) win, because although protecting United States citizens is within the police power of the Federal government, it constitutes merely an “important” rather than “compelling” government interest.
d) win, because the federal law is facially invalid, violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and is both overbroad and undervague.
Real Property
O owns Blackacre. O decided to make a conveyance of his property under the following terms:
I hereby convey Blackacre to A, so long as the property is used for religious purposes. Should the property cease being used for religious purposes, then to B and C, as joint tenants, subject to the condition that B and C marry D and E, respectively. Should either marriage fail, the property shall be immediately divided into 6 equal parts, and distributed to F, G, H, I, J, and K, as tenants in the entirety. Should B and D have children, Blackacre shall pass to all such children born before the first child of C and E. If C and E have children, Blackacre shall pass to the second child, but only if the third child of B and D dies before the first child of C and E attains the age of majority. If B dies without issue, E shall take B’s interest in Blackacre. If C dies without issue, D shall inherit a one-half interest in the entire property, unless F becomes a lawyer. If F does become a lawyer, then both B and C’s interest in Blackacre shall pass to G and H, but only if G and H do not marry and do not have children. If G and H do marry but do not have children, then Blackacre shall pass to I, J, and K as tenants in common.
O died in 1980. A took possession of Blackacre in 1981. Soon after arriving, X and Y began living on the southwest corner of Blackacre, and openly, notoriously, and infamously began holding themselves out to the community both as owners of that portion of Blackacre and as husband and wife. The statutory time period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 20 years. In 1985, X and Y had a child, Z. In 1986, X died. In 1996, Y died. In 1997, A ceased using Blackacre for religious purposes, and instead erected a casino/brothel. In 1998, B, C, D, and E moved onto the property adjacent to BlackAcre, and constructed a tunnel-system connecting their land to the casino. In 1999, B divorced D and married E. C and D did not marry, but had 3 children. In 2001, B divorced E and re-married D. B and D then had 3 additional children. In 2001, E married H, and F became a lawyer. In 2003, I and K were killed in a car accident, leaving three unmarried children, L, M, and N. In 2005, M took out a joint mortgage with P for Blackacre, without the consent of L or N. Unknown to M, N and L entered into a joint venture with Q, R, S and T to drill for oil on Blackacre. In 2006, U and V began renting a portion of the southwest corner of Blackacre to W, illegally, but with the consent of A. In 2007, Alpha, Aleph, and A-prime were granted a permanent easement across the property by X, B, and K, respectively. In 2010, Blackacre was sold at auction for $150,000.
Question 5: The interest of Q’s children in Blackacre can BEST be described as:
a) A shifting executory interest
b) A spinning executory interest
c) A springing executory interest
d) A non-freehold estate in fee simple defeasible with the possibility of reverter and the remainder subject to a condition subsequent, with power of termination.
Question 6: Does Z have a claim to Blackacre?
a) No, because any improvements made to Blackacre constitute industrial fixtures.
b) Yes, unless a court determines that Z is not an “invitee” but merely a “licencee”.
c) No, if it is both the case that the statute of limitations for adverse possession has not been tolled by the death of X and that the deed to Blackacre is in the physical possession of someone other than Z.
d) Yes, but only on the condition that Z is a bona fide purchaser (BFP) for value with no constructive knowledge of the mortgage entered into by M and P.
Question 7: The tunnel system can BEST be described as:
a) an equitable servitude
b) a covenant running with the land
c) voidable, as a non-possessory easement in gross barred by estoppel by deed.
d) void, under either the Doctrine of Worthier Title, the Rule in Shelley’s Case, the Rule Against Perpetuities, or the Rule Against Absurdities.
Evidence
A was driving his car north on Southern Road. B was driving his truck east on Eastway Drive. C was driving his bicycle south on Southern Road. D was using a jet-propelled pogo-stick to travel west on Eastway Drive. At the intersection of Southern Road and Eastway Drive, all four vehicles collided. During the accident, A was thrown from his car and landed by the side of the road. B got out to help, exclaiming, “I never should have tried to inject myself with heroin while driving 90 miles an hour in a truck that has failed the local state inspection!” Meanwhile, C disentangled himself from the remains of his bicycle, but in so doing dropped onto the ground his bicycle insurance policy and a federally-certified copy of his conviction, 9 years ago, for perjury and child molestation, both of which were surreptitiously picked up by D. When a policeman arrived on the scene, D admitted, within earshot of both A and C, that he was not licensed to operate a jet-propelled pogo-stick within the city limits. Meanwhile A, horribly mangled by the accident, and fearing that he would soon die, asked B, “Was the light green or red? I’m colorblind.” B did not respond verbally, but winked suggestively and tapped his nose with his left index finger. A then died.
Question 8: At trial, D seeks to introduce C’s prior conviction for child molestation. The court should rule that such evidence is:
a) inadmissible, as hearsay upon hearsay.
b) admissible, as an exception to the hearsay rule.
c) admissible, as an exemption from the hearsay rule.
d) inadmissible, because child molestation is not relevant to a person’s character.
Question 9: Assume for purposes of this question only that A is an undercover police officer, C is mentally retarded, and D and B were legally married at the time of the accident (but not during the trial). If B calls A to testify and D and C object, the court should:
a) overrule the objection, because spouses are always incompetent to testify.
b) sustain the objection, unless B was given a Miranda warning, and had actual or
constructive knowledge that A was a police officer.
c) dismiss the action capriciously.
d) adjourn.
The Bar Exam
Instructions: You have 5 minutes to answer the following 200 questions. Please read each question thoroughly and carefully. You will not be given additional time. Use only a number 2 pencil. If you need to leave the testing center for any reason, please raise your hand and a proctor will tear up your exam and confiscate your driver’s license. If you finish your exam before time expires, you’ve probably failed and brought shame upon your family. Good luck!
Contracts
Buyer wrote a letter to Seller, a manufacturer of widgets. The letter requested a price quotation for 1000 widgets, and was mailed May 1. Seller received the letter on May 3. Before Seller had a chance to respond, Buyer sent another letter on May 5 rescinding the request for a price quotation. The second letter was sent by uncertified carrier pigeon, and arrived on May 10. In the meantime, Seller sent a fax to Buyer on May 7 with the price quotation and a note stating “I will enjoy doing business with you.” Buyer replied by telegram on May 8, and stated “The deal is acceptable. Will take 1000 widgets at $100 per widget.” However, the telegram company negligently transmitted the message, which inadvertently read, “The deal is unacceptable. Will take 100 widgets at $1000 per widget.” Before Seller received the telegram, he sent an insured letter by overnight Fedex on May 9, stating, “I hereby rescind all offers. I look forward to working with you. It’s a deal.” Buyer then personally telephoned Seller on May 11, announcing his unequivocal intention not to pay for the widgets. Seller disagreed and orally reaffirmed the contract. On May 15, Buyer and Seller met in person and exchanged blank pieces of paper, but did not say anything to one another.
Assume for purposes of this question only that Seller has been in business for 15 years and is familiar with all trade usages in his respective field. Assume further that on May 16th, Seller received a letter from Other, with an offer to purchase 500 widgets at $500 per widget, to be delivered F.O.B., C.O.D., “inclusive of all freight and shipping charges, but only if the widgets are delivered before June 1”. Assume further that Buyer was aware of the letter from Other to Seller, and that Buyer is Other’s estranged brother and longtime business partner. Assume that Seller then sent a fax to Buyer with another price quotation and the statement, “I will never do business with you. The contract is acceptable.”
Question 1: According to common law contract principles, do Buyer and Seller have a valid contract?
a) Yes, but only if Buyer was a “merchant” as defined by the U.C.C. and was NOT a “merchant” as defined under common law.
b) No, because all contracts for the sale of widgets must be on lined 8.5X14 paper, signed by both parties, witness by two independent unbiased witnesses, stamped with a federally-approved seal of authenticity and deposited with the registrar of contracts at the local county office. In any event, the “mailbox rule” prevents the formation of contracts by facsimile or teletype device.
c) No, unless the carrier pigeon company consented.
d) Yes.
Torts
Owner owned a 30 acre tract of land called Explosionacre, where he engaged in dangerous excavation and blasting activities involving dynamite and small nuclear bombs. In addition, the southwest corner of Explosionacre housed Owner’s collection of exotic pets, including five lions, three tigers, and four bears (oh my!). The lions had been de-fanged, the tigers de-clawed, and the bears were extremely old in bear years. On the northwest corner of Explosionacre, Owner had inexpertly built a large swimming pool, with a negligently installed diving board, and recklessly installed slide, and a wantonly installed water polo net. Owner had put up conspicuous signs around the pool alerting trespassers of the dangers, but was also aware that the adjacent lot was home to the School for Curious Illiterate Troublemakers (SCIT), and that children regularly trespassed onto his property in order to play in the pool. In order to prevent such intrusions onto his property, Owner purchased two alligators and released them into the pool. On the northeast corner of Explosionacre, Owner’s widget factory produced 10,000 highly toxic, radioactive flammable widgets, which were stored in unsafe conditions in an adjacent warehouse. Additionally, Owner sometimes used the property for his Blind Hunters Club meetings, where local blind men and women could practice their sharpshooting.
One day, Sarah wandered onto Explosionacre with the intent to play in Owner’s pool, and pet her favorite tiger, Roosevelt. While using the diving board, an explosion from the blasting activities loosened two screws holding the diving board in place. As Sarah began to fall into the pool, the two alligators simultaneously leapt to devour her, but became entangled in the water polo net. While struggling to free themselves, they knocked the slide into the pool, causing a wave which propelled Sarah upward. An extremely bad storm then whipped Sarah up into the air and across the property into the tiger cage. Roosevelt the tiger came up to Sarah and, intending to rescue her, accidentally broke her left leg in his jaw. Seeing fresh blood, the lions immediately began to fight over the fallen body of Sarah, but were scared off when several blind hunters began firing in their direction. One of the bullets, due to a defective design in the gun, veered to the left and struck Sarah in the right arm. Subsidence caused by the excavations then caused the tiger cage to sink and partially open, allowing Sarah to crawl to the safety of the widget factory. Guard, an independent contractor hired by Owner but paid by Owner’s closely-held S-corporation, was asleep at his post and did not notice the trespassing girl. Inside the widget factory, Sarah attempted to open a widget, thinking that it was food. Instead, the flammable liquid inside the widget exploded, burning Sarah’s hair and eyebrows, and rendering her partially blind in one eye. The other eye was gouged out by a shard of metal from the widget container. In addition, toxic fumes from the exploded widget entered Sarah’s lungs, causing respiratory problems and a slight headache. As Sarah stumbled out of the factory, she tripped over the sleeping Guard and fell to the ground, fracturing her collarbone. Also, a chainsaw which Guard had negligently placed on the roof of the factory fell on Sarah, severing her limbs and causing lacerations to her face and torso. Sarah was then eaten by the bears.
Question 2: In an action by Sarah’s parents against Owner, who will prevail?
a) Owner, because Sarah assumed the risk by befriending a tiger.
b) Sarah, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.
c) Owner, but only if he had constructive notice of the loose screws in the pool, actual knowledge of the widget’s design defects, inquiry notice of the lions’ dangerous propensities, and record notice of the terms of the SCIT’s lease.
d) Roosevelt.
Criminal Law
Bob hated his neighbor, Bill. Late one night, Bob entered Bill’s house through an open window, carrying a gun and a can of gasoline. Bob poured the gasoline around the bed where Bill and his wife were sleeping. The noise woke up Bill’s wife, who ran into the bathroom, locking the door. Bob then noticed a watch on Bill’s nightstand and decided to take it. As he reached over for it, Bill awoke. Bob was frightened, and unreasonably but honestly believed that Bill was trying to lunge at him. Bob fired 3 shots. One bullet ricocheted off Bill’s watch and was deflected through the bathroom door into Bill’s wife’s heart, killing her instantly. The second bullet hit Bill in the face, causing only minor injuries. The third bullet knocked over a lit kerosene lamp, which ignited the gasoline. The fire blackened, but did not char, Bill’s bedroom.
Question 3: Of what crimes can Bob be convicted?
I. Larceny of Bill’s watch.
II. Robbery of Bill’s watch.
III. False imprisonment of Bill’s wife.
IV. Arson of Bill’s house.
V. Involuntary manslaughter of Bill.
VI. Attempted murder of Bill’s wife.
VII. Conspiracy to murder Bill.
VIII. Embezzlement.
a) I, II, III, IV, but not VI, VII, or VIII.
b) II, VI, I, V, but not V, I, II, or VI.
c) VII, I, IV, IX, XIII, but not LXVII, MCMVIII, or II
d) Some of the above.
Constitutional Law
A new Federal law provides for the following:
Any non-pregnant Episcopalian female military officer, irrespective of race, who engages in non-violent protest using signs, banners, or megaphones, within 50 feet of any abortion clinic, mosque, or the headquarters of the NAACP, on weekdays (excluding federal holidays), shall be dishonorably discharged from the military, shall spend no more than 6 (but less than 10) months in jail, shall be fined no less than $1000.00 (but more than $1001.00), and shall have her driver’s license revoked for a period not to exceed the remainder of her natural life.
In the state of Idahoming, a state statute provides:
Any African-American Christian military or police officer (irrespective of gender), who engages in abusive or harassing conduct, using placards, posters, microphone and/or amplifier devices, within 47 feet of any medical facility, hospital and/or long term care nursing facility, synagogue, or the headquarters of the KKK, on any Mondays, Tuesdays or Fridays (including federal holidays, but excluding state holidays) which fall within the first 13 calendar days within any month (excluding February and July), shall be honorably discharged from service, shall spend no more than 10 (but less than 6) months in jail, shall be fined a maximum of $12.00, and shall have their state welfare benefits terminated both for themselves and for any dependents.
Militant Lesbian, a non-pregnant Buddhist, was arrested by Federal law enforcement agents 48 feet from the Baby Butcher Abortion Clinic in downtown Idahoming City, for chanting religiously uplifting but sexually explicit slogans at schoolchildren passing by.
Question 4: If Militant Lesbian challenges the constitutionality of the Federal law, she will:
a) lose, because the state law pre-empts Federal law in cases where Congress, through the dormant commerce clause, has sought to occupy less than the entire “field”, and militant lesbians are within the “zone” of persons intended to be protected by such statutes.
b) lose, unless the Supreme Court agrees that her case is not moot due to the state law, that she does not lack proper standing, that her situation constitutes as “case or controversy” as articulated by prior caselaw, that the amount of her claim is greater than $75,000, and that her case is “ripe” (but not “spoiled”).
c) win, because although protecting United States citizens is within the police power of the Federal government, it constitutes merely an “important” rather than “compelling” government interest.
d) win, because the federal law is facially invalid, violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and is both overbroad and undervague.
Real Property
O owns Blackacre. O decided to make a conveyance of his property under the following terms:
I hereby convey Blackacre to A, so long as the property is used for religious purposes. Should the property cease being used for religious purposes, then to B and C, as joint tenants, subject to the condition that B and C marry D and E, respectively. Should either marriage fail, the property shall be immediately divided into 6 equal parts, and distributed to F, G, H, I, J, and K, as tenants in the entirety. Should B and D have children, Blackacre shall pass to all such children born before the first child of C and E. If C and E have children, Blackacre shall pass to the second child, but only if the third child of B and D dies before the first child of C and E attains the age of majority. If B dies without issue, E shall take B’s interest in Blackacre. If C dies without issue, D shall inherit a one-half interest in the entire property, unless F becomes a lawyer. If F does become a lawyer, then both B and C’s interest in Blackacre shall pass to G and H, but only if G and H do not marry and do not have children. If G and H do marry but do not have children, then Blackacre shall pass to I, J, and K as tenants in common.
O died in 1980. A took possession of Blackacre in 1981. Soon after arriving, X and Y began living on the southwest corner of Blackacre, and openly, notoriously, and infamously began holding themselves out to the community both as owners of that portion of Blackacre and as husband and wife. The statutory time period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 20 years. In 1985, X and Y had a child, Z. In 1986, X died. In 1996, Y died. In 1997, A ceased using Blackacre for religious purposes, and instead erected a casino/brothel. In 1998, B, C, D, and E moved onto the property adjacent to BlackAcre, and constructed a tunnel-system connecting their land to the casino. In 1999, B divorced D and married E. C and D did not marry, but had 3 children. In 2001, B divorced E and re-married D. B and D then had 3 additional children. In 2001, E married H, and F became a lawyer. In 2003, I and K were killed in a car accident, leaving three unmarried children, L, M, and N. In 2005, M took out a joint mortgage with P for Blackacre, without the consent of L or N. Unknown to M, N and L entered into a joint venture with Q, R, S and T to drill for oil on Blackacre. In 2006, U and V began renting a portion of the southwest corner of Blackacre to W, illegally, but with the consent of A. In 2007, Alpha, Aleph, and A-prime were granted a permanent easement across the property by X, B, and K, respectively. In 2010, Blackacre was sold at auction for $150,000.
Question 5: The interest of Q’s children in Blackacre can BEST be described as:
a) A shifting executory interest
b) A spinning executory interest
c) A springing executory interest
d) A non-freehold estate in fee simple defeasible with the possibility of reverter and the remainder subject to a condition subsequent, with power of termination.
Question 6: Does Z have a claim to Blackacre?
a) No, because any improvements made to Blackacre constitute industrial fixtures.
b) Yes, unless a court determines that Z is not an “invitee” but merely a “licencee”.
c) No, if it is both the case that the statute of limitations for adverse possession has not been tolled by the death of X and that the deed to Blackacre is in the physical possession of someone other than Z.
d) Yes, but only on the condition that Z is a bona fide purchaser (BFP) for value with no constructive knowledge of the mortgage entered into by M and P.
Question 7: The tunnel system can BEST be described as:
a) an equitable servitude
b) a covenant running with the land
c) voidable, as a non-possessory easement in gross barred by estoppel by deed.
d) void, under either the Doctrine of Worthier Title, the Rule in Shelley’s Case, the Rule Against Perpetuities, or the Rule Against Absurdities.
Evidence
A was driving his car north on Southern Road. B was driving his truck east on Eastway Drive. C was driving his bicycle south on Southern Road. D was using a jet-propelled pogo-stick to travel west on Eastway Drive. At the intersection of Southern Road and Eastway Drive, all four vehicles collided. During the accident, A was thrown from his car and landed by the side of the road. B got out to help, exclaiming, “I never should have tried to inject myself with heroin while driving 90 miles an hour in a truck that has failed the local state inspection!” Meanwhile, C disentangled himself from the remains of his bicycle, but in so doing dropped onto the ground his bicycle insurance policy and a federally-certified copy of his conviction, 9 years ago, for perjury and child molestation, both of which were surreptitiously picked up by D. When a policeman arrived on the scene, D admitted, within earshot of both A and C, that he was not licensed to operate a jet-propelled pogo-stick within the city limits. Meanwhile A, horribly mangled by the accident, and fearing that he would soon die, asked B, “Was the light green or red? I’m colorblind.” B did not respond verbally, but winked suggestively and tapped his nose with his left index finger. A then died.
Question 8: At trial, D seeks to introduce C’s prior conviction for child molestation. The court should rule that such evidence is:
a) inadmissible, as hearsay upon hearsay.
b) admissible, as an exception to the hearsay rule.
c) admissible, as an exemption from the hearsay rule.
d) inadmissible, because child molestation is not relevant to a person’s character.
Question 9: Assume for purposes of this question only that A is an undercover police officer, C is mentally retarded, and D and B were legally married at the time of the accident (but not during the trial). If B calls A to testify and D and C object, the court should:
a) overrule the objection, because spouses are always incompetent to testify.
b) sustain the objection, unless B was given a Miranda warning, and had actual or
constructive knowledge that A was a police officer.
c) dismiss the action capriciously.
d) adjourn.