Freaking out now...
Today I was going through the Bar-Bri model answers to the essay questions from the 2006 Texas Bar exams. Then I thought maybe it would be a good idea to take a look at the bar examiner's published comments, which they post after every exam. For each essay, they make general comments on the quality of the answers and point out common mistakes.
Imagine my consternation to find that sometimes the Bar-Bri answers ARE WRONG. Now I'm very unhappy. I'll provide two quick examples from July 2006:
No. 10 says there is a divorce and are several things in dispute [that goes without saying], and the only evidence adduced at trial relating to them is as follows: before they divorced, Wife's Mother conveyed Blackacre by deed: "For good and valuable consideration, Mother does hearby grant, sell, and convey unto Wife, as her sole and separate property and estate, Blackacre." Husband claims Blackacre is community property because it was conveyed during the marriage. Is it community property?
Bar-Bri launches into a big discussion about whether Blackacre was a gift or a sale of property, and if it was a sale whether the funds used were separate or community proeprty. The answer discusses what she would have to prove to make it separate property. But the Examiners say that would be a WRONG answer because the question stated that this info was the only evidence adduced at trial! So you can't worry about what other evidence there could have been; just make a decision based on the facts provided. (I would say community property because it was acquired during the marriage and there is a presumption of community property. She hasn't proved it was separate!).
No. 12 says that X conveyed Blackacre to Y, reserving one-half of the royalty under any present or future mineral lease. Y conveys Blackacre to Z, reserving 1/4 royalty, but does not mention X. Sooo... who has what? Bar-Bri that the Duhig doctrine didn't apply, but the Grader says it did! "Many examinees did not seem to recognize that Y conveyed a greater interest than he owned and did not correctly apply the Duhig doctrine."
Argh!
5 Comments:
Dont Freak. Seriously, I took the above mentioned bar exam. I said the house belonged to the community (#10) and I didn't mention Duhig (#12). For that matter, I messed up #1 (and a few others subparts along the way). Guess what, I passed - and you will too. There's some room to breathe. Everything doesn't have to be perfect.
I focused on making high scores on my strong subjects and a decent showing on the weak ones. Fortunately, it worked.
Good luck next week. Remember, the bar exam is about the forest, not the trees. Hope it all works out!
Thanks; I hope you're right!
Good luck tomorrow!!
Nora
I agree with anonymous. And you know what would happen if you answered question 10 the Bar/Bri way? The examiners would say hmm, good analysis, waste of time, and just pay attention to the part where you start "but, based on the evidence admitted at trial. . .".
Good luck.
Thank you! I knew the Bar Bri was wrong! They've been wrong on at least two other occasions in property: 1) they forgot to apply Cy Pres and said a clause would fail for a RAP violation and 2) they overlooked a TX statute that says all covenants requiring wood shingles are unenforceable. Oh well... Definitely don't take BarBri for gospel.
Post a Comment
<< Home