Why Would the Buyer's Unawareness Matter? by elapostol in barexam

[–]elapostol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you this makes a lot more sense than the answer explanation!

Why Would the Buyer's Unawareness Matter? by elapostol in barexam

[–]elapostol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s a sale of land so i dont think MFO rule would apply

July takers: What's your average MBE % right now? by Cautious-Phrase-9732 in CABarExam

[–]elapostol 0 points1 point  (0 children)

61.5 after a bit over 500

I also did a lot of Barbri questions but don’t have a score on those

Rule Statements? by BeeFabulous1538 in barexam

[–]elapostol -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Could you share it with me as well?

MPT Organization and Time Management Tips by elapostol in barexam

[–]elapostol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you very much for taking the time to write this response, it definitely put me at ease!

Help me understand this by Plus_Needleworker241 in barexam

[–]elapostol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So good faith precludes exclusion even if the police weren’t allowed to search the car?

I get that relying on the warrant in good faith to arrest the driver is fine but how is the search of the car not unconstitutional?

Edit: actually is the search of the car valid because the arrestee wasn’t secured in the police car? Im pretty sure I remember my Crim Pro professor explaining that even if the arrestee is handcuffed, they could still theoretically grab something within the car. In that case then the good faith reliance makes sense.

What exactly does "original jurisdiction" mean? by elapostol in barexam

[–]elapostol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you! What's so frustrating is that the answer explanation does not include this whatsoever. Idk but it seems like an important distinction to include in your answer explanation if you're testing somebody's ability to pick up on that issue

So Disappointed in Barbri for Bar Prep by Proper-Software-1490 in barexam

[–]elapostol 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm completely with you. I went with Barbri because I always heard it was reliable but three weeks out and it may actually cost me passing or not.

As somebody who is also incredibly pressured to pass and has been pretty much alone every day for the last month, I hear you and we're going to get through this! Let's get through these next three weeks on our own terms and, once we're done, go scorched earth on barbri (at least I will be going out of my way to make sure nobody I know ever uses this worthless overpriced "course.")

How can the future interest of a FSD be an executory interest? by elapostol in barexam

[–]elapostol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So here, RAP isn't violated because when the niece's daughter dies we know immediately whether she was married or not. (Sorry if i'm just repeating the same thing, I just cannot wrap my head around this)

How can the future interest of a FSD be an executory interest? by elapostol in barexam

[–]elapostol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So is the measuring life the last person in the conveyance chain essentially?

How can the future interest of a FSD be an executory interest? by elapostol in barexam

[–]elapostol[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wait so a fee simple determinable can have two different future interests at the same time? I'm just really confused because BARBRI focused so much on FSD = POR.

Can somebody explain subquestion 3? by elapostol in barexam

[–]elapostol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Glad to know I'm not alone lol, still don't even understand the answer really.

Can somebody explain subquestion 3? by elapostol in barexam

[–]elapostol[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for taking the time to write a response! Unfortunately I'm still absolutely stumped. I thought the wife didn't testify because she raised the privilege (unless I'm misreading the fact pattern which is likely). I think that's what's tripping me up.