12/9/2005

8 Responses to “For Those Interested”

1. I want the selected answers to be released so I can see what the real answer to Question 2 was.

   Matto Ichiban (5ac68f) — 12/9/2005 @ 9:35 am

   
   

2. You mean the one where I didn’t even mention equitable servitudes?

   Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/9/2005 @ 10:03 am

   
   

3. Hey, some people didn’t even know it was a property question.

   Matto Ichiban (5ac68f) — 12/9/2005 @ 12:26 pm

   
   

4. The test is interesting. Is it closed book? It seems like a lawyer shouldn’t have to memorize obscure points of law as long as he knows how to look them up. Although I guess in a trial a lawyer needs to know when to object.

   Regarding the community property question, my layman’s take:

   1a. The savings account will be separate property as long as it solely contains the earnings from separate property (Henry’s stock). Any commingling and it becomes community property. One bothersome point, what about taxes? If Henry wants to keep it separate property does he have allocate the couple’s taxes (how?) and pay the portion attributable to his separate property out of the separate property?

   b. The injury settlement should be divided into two parts, one part as compensation for Henry’s losses from the accident prior to the dissolution of the marriage and the other part as compensation for Henry’s losses from the accident after the dissolution of the marriage. The first part is community property, the second part is Henry’s separate property.

   c. Wilma’s stock option (or more precisely the fractional value she earned due to employment during the marriage) is community property. I would allocate value based on the fraction of time she was married during the vesting period.

   2. Assuming Wilma knew of Henry’s child support obligation prior to the marriage and that he was paying it out of community funds Henry has no obligation to repay it. Perhaps if Henry concealed all this Wilma would have a case for repayment.

   If Henry does have to repay, he would repay the whole amount but should get half of it back when the community assets are divided (assuming the community is not otherwise in debt).

   So what are the real answers?

   James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 12/10/2005 @ 5:01 pm

   
   

5. a) Even with commingling, the funds can be traced, and commingling alone won’t convert separate property to community property. Taxes on separate property must be paid with separate funds; otherwise, he’ll owe his wife at dissolution.

   b) PI settlements are entirely the separate property of the victim; however, when, as here, community property is used to pay for a lot of the treatment, and/or there’s potential injustice (“HAHAHAAHAHA look how rich I am and how poor you are!”) the settlement will be divided as seen fit. I like your idea more though.

   c) Looks good to me.

   2) Child support is a separate property obligation as long as separate property is available. I think- they never talked about this.

   Angry Clam (0bd404) — 12/11/2005 @ 5:04 am

   
   

6. Clam –

   Rest assured, this stuff fades nicely away. Eight years later, I only remember (a) that the Practical involved sunken treasure and (b) there was one MBE question about water law and one about arson.

   This is also the reason that no lawyer will ever bother to reform the BAR to make it easier or better or more realistic. Once that thing is done, you just can’t care.

   The Pathetic Earthling (08c01e) — 12/11/2005 @ 1:11 pm

   
   

7. Angry Clam, thanks for the comments.

   On to question two which I find somewhat baffling.

   First I assume the sale of ASI to MPI is irrelevant even though the deeds specify payments to ASI.

   Next I don’t see any plausible theory for Cora to sue Buyer for not paying his security fee (anymore than Cora could sue Buyer for not paying his property taxes). It seems to me that this sort of clause in the deed creates a basically one way obligation. It is true that the deed says “maintenance of security” but no particular level of security is specified. However perhaps somebody (the developer or MPI) is obligated to provide Cora some level of security if she pays her $600. Even so I don’t understand how this obligation can depend on anything Buyer does. Furthermore Cora has not suffered any actual damages yet in any case. So if MPI stops providing security perhaps Cora can sue MPI or the developer for some sort of breach of contract. But I don’t see any cause for suing Buyer directly.

   Incidentally the whole setup seems wrong. What’s going to happen after 10 years? Who is maintaining the roads and gates? There should be a homeowner’s association to handle this and contract with the security company. In which case the homeowner’s association could sue Buyer. However I still don’t think Cora could sue Buyer directly even if the homeowner’s association raised her assessment to cover Buyer’s default.

   James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 12/11/2005 @ 3:56 pm

   
   

8. Wow, in retrospect I’m amazed I passed, then again, I have been able to enjoy these past 5 months of enjoyable atrophy.

   Joel B. (31d860) — 12/12/2005 @ 8:03 am