Pam, a resident of State X, brought suit in state court in State X against Danco, a corporation with its principal place of business in State Y. The suit was for damages of $90,000 alleging that Danco breached a contract to supply Pam with paper goods for which she paid $90,000 in advance. In her complaint, Pam requested a jury trial. State X law provides that contract disputes for less than $200,000 must be tried to a judge. Danco removed the case to federal court in State X. Danco moved to strike the request for a jury trial. The federal court denied the motion. A few days before trial, Pam learned for the first time that Danco was incorporated in State X. She moved to have the case remanded to state court on this ground. The federal court denied the motion. At trial, Pam testified that she paid for the goods but never received them. Danco admitted receiving Pam's payment and then presented evidence from its dispatcher that it had sent a truck to Pam's office with the paper goods. Danco also called as a witness Rafe, who works in a building next to Pam's office. Rafe testified he saw a truck stop at Pam's office on the day Danco claimed it delivered the goods. Rafe also testified he saw the truck driver take boxes marked "paper goods" into Pam's office that same day. At the close of all the evidence, Pam moved for judgment as a matter of law. Danco opposed the motion, and the court denied the motion. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Pam. Danco then moved for judgment as a matter of law, which Pam opposed. The court denied Danco's motion. Did the court rule correctly on: 1. Danco' s motion to strike the request for a jury trial? Discuss. 2. Pam's motion to have the case remanded to state court? Discuss. 3. Pam's and Danco's motions for judgment as a matter of law? Discuss.

Question 1 - February, 2002

In 1998, Tom executed a valid will. The dispositive provisions of the will provided: "1. $100,000 to my friend, Al.My residence on Elm St. to my sister Beth.My OmegaCorp stock to my brother Carl.The residue of my estate to State University (SU)." In 1999, Tom had a falling out with Al and executed a valid codicil that expressly revoked paragraph 1 of the will but made no other changes. In 2000, Tom reconciled with Al and told several people, "Al doesn't need to worry; I've provided for him." In 2001, Beth died intestate, survived only by one child, Norm, and two grandchildren, Deb and Eve, who were children of a predeceased child of Beth. Also in 2001, Tom sold his OmegaCorp stock and reinvested the proceeds by purchasing AlphaCorp stock. Tom died in 2002. The will and codicil were found in his safe deposit box. The will was unmarred, but the codicil had the words ''Null and Void" written across the text of the codicil in Tom's handwriting, followed by Tom's signature. Tom was survived by Al, Carl, Norm, Deb, and Eve. At the time of Tom's death, his estate consisted of $100,000 in cash, the residence on Elm St., and the AlphaCorp stock. What rights, if any, do Al, Carl, Norm, Deb, Eve, and SU have in Tom's estate? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 6 - July, 2003

H and W were married in 1985 in Franklin, a non-community property state. H worked as an engineer for Texco beginning in 1975. W worked as a bookkeeper. During his employment with Texco, H received annual bonuses in the form of Texco stock. By 1990, H owned 1,000 shares of Texco. In 1990, H accepted a job offer from Calco, a California-based engineering firm, and H and W moved to California . In 1991, Hand W purchased a condominium for $200 ,000, taking title as "H and W, husband and wife, as joint tenants with right of survivorship." W paid the $50,000 down payment with money she had recently inherited, and Hand W obtained a $150,000 loan secured by a deed of trust for the balance of the purchase price. H made the monthly principal and interest payments on the loan out of his Calco earnings. In 1999, W, who had found a bookkeeping job shortly after moving to California, was charged with embezzling $50,000 from that employer. W admitted spending the $50,000 on cocaine. W retained Lawyer, who negotiated a plea bargain pursuant to which W pled guilty, was placed on three years probation, and was ordered to make full restitution. W also underwent treatment at DrugStop, a drug treatment facility, at a cost of $10,000. Lawyer charged W $5,000 to handle her case. H had no knowledge of either W's embezzlement or cocaine habit until her arrest. H has filed for dissolution of the marriage. The condominium is currently valued at $300,000 with a $50,000 balance on the mortgage. What are Hand W's respective rights and liabilities with regard to: 1. The 1,000 shares of Texco stock? 2. The condominium? 3. The attorney's fee, restitution, and expenses for the DrugStop treatment? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 1 - February, 2000

Ivan, an informant who had often proven unreliable, told Alan, a detective, that Debbie had offered Ivan $2,000 to find a hitman to kill her husband, Carl. On the basis of that information, Alan obtained a warrant for Debbie’s arrest. In the affidavit in support of the warrant, Alan described Ivan as “a reliable informant” even though Alan knew that Ivan was unreliable. Alan gave the arrest warrant to Bob, an undercover police officer, and told Bob to contact Debbie and pretend to be a hit man. Bob called Debbie, told her he was a friend of Ivan and could do the killing, and arranged to meet her at a neighborhood bar. When the two met, the following conversation ensued: Bob: I understand you are looking for someone to kill your husband. Debbie: I was, but I now think it’s too risky. I’ve changed my mind. Bob: That’s silly. It’s not risky at all. I’ll do it for $5,000 and you can set up an airtight alibi. Debbie: That’s not a bad price. Let me think about it. Bob: It’s now or never. Debbie: I’ll tell you what. I’ll give you a $200 down payment, but I want to think some more about it. I’m still not sure about it. When Debbie handed Bob the $200 and got up to leave, Bob identified himself as a police officer and arrested her. He handcuffed and searched her, finding a clear vial containing a white, powdery substance in her front pocket. Bob stated: “Well, well. What have we got here?” Debbie replied, “It’s cocaine. I guess I’m in real trouble now.” Debbie has been charged with solicitation of murder and possession of cocaine. 1. How should the trial court rule on the following motions: a) To suppress the cocaine under the Fourth Amendment? Discuss. b) To suppress Debbie’s post-arrest statement under Miranda? Discuss. 2. Is Debbie likely to prevail on a defense of entrapment at trial? Discuss.

Question 6 - February, 2017

In 2001, Ted, who was married to Wendy, signed a valid will bequeathing all of his property as follows: “$10,000 of my separate property to my daughter Ann; then $2,000 of my separate property to each person who is an employee of my company, START, at the time of my death; and all the rest of my separate property, plus all of my share of our community property to my beloved wife of 20 years, if she survives me.” No other gifts were specified in the will. In 2003, Wendy died. In 2005, Ted adopted a child, Bob. In 2006, Ted signed a valid codicil to his 2001 will stating that, “I hereby bequeath $10,000 of my separate property to my beloved son, Bob. All the rest of my 2001 will remains the same.” In 2011, Ted married Nell. In 2012, Ted and Nell had a child, Carol. In 2016, Ted died, leaving his 2001 will and his 2006 codicil as his only testamentary instruments. After all debts, taxes, and expenses had been paid, Ted’s separate property was worth $90,000, and his share of the community property was worth $100,000. At death, Ted still owned START, which by then had ten employees, none of whom had been an employee of START in 2001. What rights, if any, do Nell, Ann, Bob, Carol and the START employees have in Ted’s estate? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;Answer according to California law.

Question 5 - February, 2018

In 1998, Henry and Wilma, residents of California, married. Henry had purchased shares of stock before marriage and kept these shares in his brokerage account. The shares in the account paid him an annual cash dividend of $3,000. Henry deposited this income in a savings account held in his name alone.&nbsp;In 1999, Wilma was hired by Tech Co. Wilma was induced to work for Tech Co. by the representation that successful employees would receive bonuses of company stock options. Later that year, Wilma was given options on 1,000 shares of Tech Co. stock. These stock options are exercisable in 2006, as long as Wilma is still working for Tech Co. In 2003, because of marital difficulties, Wilma moved out of the home she had shared with Henry. Nevertheless, the couple continued to attend marriage counseling sessions that they had been attending for several months. Later that year, Henry was injured in an automobile accident. Afterwards, Henry and Wilma discontinued marriage counseling and filed for dissolution of marriage. In 2004, Henry settled his personal injury claim from the automobile accident for $20,000. The settlement included reimbursement for $5,000 of medical expenses that had been paid with community funds. Henry had a child by a prior marriage and, over the course of his marriage to Wilma, had paid out of community funds a total of $18,000 as child support. 1. When making the final property division in Henry and Wilma's dissolution proceeding, how should the court characterize the following items: a. Henry 's savings account? Discuss. b. Henry 's personal injury settlement? Discuss. c. Wilma 's stock options? Discuss. 2. Should the court require Henry to reimburse the community for his child support payments and, if so, in what amount? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 1 - July, 2005

Petra, a State W resident, recently patented a new design for a tamper-free bottle cap for soft drinks. She contracted with Dave, who lives in State X, to design a manufacturing process to mass-produce the newly patented bottle caps. Under the contract, Dave was required to relocate to State W, where Petra had leased research and development facilities, and to keep confidential all design and production information concerning the bottle cap. Dave promptly found someone to rent his home in State X. He moved all his belongings to State W. After working for six months in State W, Dave had perfected the manufacturing process, but when Petra denied Dave's request for additional compensation he quit his job and disclosed the bottle cap manufacturing process to Kola, Inc. ("Kola"). Kola is a regional soft drink bottler incorporated in State Y, with its principal place of business in State W. Kola flooded the market with bottled soft drinks capped with Kola's version of Petra's bottle cap months before Petra could begin production. When Petra discovered what had happened, she filed suit against Dave and Kola in state court in State W for violation of State W's patent infringement law. Petra's complaint sought damages of $50,000 from Dave and $70,000 from Kola. Unknown to Petra's lawyer, a federal patent law enacted shortly before Petra filed suit encompasses the type of claim pleaded by Petra and expressly preempts all state laws on the subject. Six weeks after being served with the complaint, Kola removed the entire action to the federal district court in State W. Petra immediately filed a motion to remand the case to state court in State W. The district court denied Petra's motion. Petra immediately filed an appeal of the court's ruling denying Petra's motion to remand with the appropriate federal court of appeals. 1. Did the federal district court rule correctly on Petra's motion to remand the case to state court in State W? Discuss. 2. Should the federal court of appeals entertain Petra's appeal? Discuss.

Question 1 - February, 2003

Henry and Wanda married in 1980 when both were students at State X University. State X is a non-community property state. Shortly after the marriage, Henry graduated and obtained employment with a State X engineering firm. Wanda gave birth to the couple's only child, and Henry and Wanda agreed that Wanda would quit her job and remain home to care for the child. They bought a house in State X using their savings for the down payment and obtained a loan secured by a twenty-year mortgage for the balance of the purchase price. Mortgage payments were subsequently paid from Henry's earnings. The title to the State X house was in Henry's name alone. In 1990, Henry accepted a job offer from a California engineering firm. The couple moved to California with their child and rented out the State X house. In 1992, Wanda's uncle died and left her an oil painting with an appraised value of $5,000 and a small cabin located on a lake in California. Wanda took the painting to the cabin and hung it over the fireplace. In 1993, after reading a book entitled "How to Avoid Probate," Henry persuaded Wanda to execute and record a deed conveying the lake cabin to "Henry and Wanda, as joint tenants with right of survivorship." Wanda did so, believing that the only effect of the conveyance would be to avoid probate. In 1995, after three years of study paid for out of Henry's earnings, Wanda obtained a degree in podiatry and opened her own podiatry practice. Her practice became quite successful because of her enthusiasm, skill, and willingness to work long hours. Henry continued to work for the engineering firm. In 2002, Henry and Wanda separated and filed for dissolution of marriage. Wanda had the painting reappraised. The artist, now deceased, has become immensely popular, and the painting is now worth $50,000. Upon dissolution, what are Henry's and Wanda's respective rights in: 1. The lake cabin? Discuss. 2. The painting? Discuss. 3. The State X house? Discuss. 4. Wanda's professional education and podiatry practice? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 6 - February, 2003

Builder sold a shopping mall to Owner. The recorded deed from Builder to Owner conveyed the mall and parking lot where the parking spaces were numbered 1 to 100. The deed reserved to Builder the exclusive right to use parking spaces 15 through 20 as a place to set up a stand to sell sports memorabilia and sandwiches on Sundays. The shopping mall was located adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood. Owner entered into a written 30-year lease with Lois lea sing to her a store in the mall and parking spaces 1 through 20. Under the lease, Lois agreed to pay rent monthly and not to assign the lease without Owner's prior written approval. After occupying the leased premises for five years, Lois subleased the store and parking spaces to Fast Food for a term of ten years without first having obtained Owner's written approval. Fast Food occupied the premises and paid rent to Owner. Fast Food , which operated a take-out restaurant on the premises seven days a week , used state-of-the-art equipment and operated in compliance with all local health ordinances. Notwithstanding this, on warm days when Fast Food was particularly busy, unpleasant cooking odors were emitted from Fast Food's kitchen. The unpleasant odors caused discomfort to many of the homeowners living in the adjacent neighborhood. On the first Sunday after Fast Food opened its take-out restaurant, Builder set up his memorabilia and sandwich stand in parking spaces 15 through 20. Fast Food, not aware of the provision in the deed, complained to Builder about the competition of Builder 's sandwich sales and the occupancy of parking spaces allocated to Fast Food. Builder ignored Fast Food's complaints. Fast Food then informed Owner that it would cease paying rent until Owner took steps to prevent Builder from using the parking spaces. Owner explained to Fast Food that there was nothing he could do about it, but Fast Food insisted that it would not pay further rent until Owner stopped Builder from setting up his stand.&nbsp;&nbsp;Thereupon, Owner hired a locksmith, who changed the locks on the space occupied by Fast Food, thus denying Fast Food access to the premises. 1. Did Lois violate the "no-assignment" provision in her lease with Owner? 2. If Fast Food brings an action in trespass against Builder for his use of parking spaces 15 through 20, is Fast Food likely to prevail? 3. Did Owner have the right to change the locks on Fast Food's premises? 4. Can the homeowners establish a claim for nuisance against Fast Food? Discuss.

Question 1 - February, 2007

In 2015, Priscilla was shopping at Grocery when a very large display of bottled soda products fell on her, bruising her head and entire body. She filed suit in federal district court against Grocery for negligently maintaining the display, and sought damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages. Grocery recognized that jurisdiction was proper and filed an answer denying liability. Accompanying the complaint was a set of 26 interrogatories, which read in part: 25. Please provide the names and addresses of every Grocery employee who worked on construction of the soda display and every soda company employee who did so. 26. Please provide copies of every training manual Grocery has used in training its employees. Grocery responded: Objection. These interrogatories are flawed. Upon receiving the reply, Priscilla filed a motion to compel further responses. Grocery made two discovery requests asking for: a. An order requiring Priscilla to submit to mental and physical examinations. b. All of Priscilla's tax returns since 1995. Priscilla opposed both discovery requests and Grocery filed motions to compel. Before Priscilla filed her lawsuit, Grocery hired Xavier, an expert on grocery store displays, to investigate the accident. His findings were unfavorable, and Grocery has not identified Xavier as a witness. Xavier is an independent contractor, but he works exclusively for Grocery. Included in Priscilla's original set of interrogatories was a question seeking the names and opinions of all experts Grocery had hired for the litigation. In response to that interrogatory, Grocery replied: Objection. Privileged. No information about Xavier was disclosed by Grocery. 1. How should the court rule on Priscilla's motion to compel further responses to her interrogatories to Grocery? Discuss. 2. How should the court rule on each of Grocery's motions to compel? Discuss. 3. Was Grocery's response to Priscilla's interrogatory about its experts proper? Discuss. 4. Should the court sustain Grocery's assertion of privilege with regard to Xavier? Discuss.

Question 1 - July, 2019

Three months ago, Dave was arrested for the burglary of a shoe store after a forensic investigation by the police department identified him as the burglar. Patty, a prosecutor, brought burglary charges against him. A week ago, Patty saw a press release that the police chief was planning to issue to the media. It stated that Dave was a “transient” and had been “arrested for burglary by Inspector Ing, who is known for his ability to apprehend guilty criminals.” Four days ago, Patty received a report from a federal agency stating that the police department’s forensic investigation identifying Dave as the burglar was unreliable. Three days ago, Patty announced “ready for trial” at a pretrial conference. Yesterday, Patty learned that two eyewitnesses had identified Dave as the burglar. Because she did not intend to use evidence from the forensic investigation, she did not disclose the federal agency report to Dave’s attorney. Dave’s attorney has never asked her to provide discovery. This morning, Patty called the judge who will be presiding over Dave’s trial to reassure him that there is ample non-forensic evidence to convict Dave. What ethical violations, if any, has Patty committed? Discuss.Answer according to California and ABA authorities.

Question 1 - February, 2014

Paul, an actor, had small but memorable roles in two recent Hollywood blockbusters. Paul was also a first-year law student. He began having difficulty keeping up with his studies and became increasingly anxious about failing. He told his Legal Research and Writing professor, Dan, about his anxiety and doubts about his ability to timely complete a research paper Dan had assigned. Dan noticed that Paul appeared unusually anxious and suggested he go see the school counselor. Paul returned to the apartment that he shared with Jack, who was also enrolled in Dan’s Legal Research and Writing class. The day before the research paper was due, Jack looked for his paper in his room but could not find it. Later, after Jack returned home from school, he found the paper on his desk where he thought he had originally placed it. After submitting the paper, Jack became suspicious that Paul might have copied parts of Jack’s paper on the day that it seemed to be missing. Jack went to Dan’s office and told him about his suspicions. Dan pulled from a stack of submitted papers what he thought was Paul’s paper. When Jack saw the paper, he recognized the footnotes and said that Paul had “copied all of the footnotes from my paper.” The next day, Dan told Jack and Paul’s class that “I hope no other student has copied his footnotes from another student’s paper like that two-bit actor Paul.” Paul was in class and heard the statement. Deeply humiliated, Paul suffered a severe panic attack, but did not seek medical treatment. Dan later discovered that he had inadvertently shown Jack his own paper and not Paul’s paper and that Paul had not copied Jack’s or any other person’s materials. Paul has sued Dan based on his statement to the class. What claim(s) may Paul reasonably raise against Dan; what defenses may Dan reasonably assert; what damages, if any, may Paul recover; and what is the likely outcome? Discuss.

Question 1 - February, 2020

Copyco, Inc . ("Copyco"), a maker of copy machines, was incorporated in State A. Most of Copyco's employees work in State Bat its sole manufacturing plant, which is located in the southern federal judicial district of State B. Copyco also has a distribution center in the northern federal judicial district of State B. Sally is a citizen of State B. Sally was using a Copyco copy machine at Blinko, a copy center within the northern federal judicial district of State B, when the machine started to jam. When Sally tried to clear the jam, she severely injured her hand. She underwent several surgeries at a nearby hospital. Her physician believes she may never recover the full use of her hand. Sally filed a lawsuit against Copyco as the sole defendant in the State B northern district federal court. Her complaint alleges that Copyco was negligent and that she has suffered physical injury, and also seeks damages of $100,000, exclusive of costs and interest. The federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear Sally's lawsuit on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Copyco, however , moved for a change of venue to the southern federal judicial district of State B. The court denied Copyco 's motion. Sally wishes to obtain from Blinko a copy of the maintenance records for the copy machine that caused her injuries. Questioning the extent of the injuries Sally alleged, Copyco wishes the court to compel Sally to appear for an examination by both a physician and a psychologist of Copyco's own choosing. 1. Was the federal court correct to deny Copyco's motion for change of venue? Discuss. 2. (a) Is Sally entitled to a copy of the maintenance records? Discuss. (b) If so, how must she proceed to obtain them? Discuss. 3. (a) Is Copyco entitled to an order to compel Sally to appear for an examination by a physician and an examination by a psychologist chosen by Copyco? Discus . (b) If so, how must it proceed to obtain such an order? Discuss.

Question 2 - February, 2009

County Jail has prominently posted in the inmate dining hall quotations from three of the Ten Commandments as follow: “You shall not kill.” “You shall not steal.” “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” County officials thought these were “good moral principles” that would assist prisoners when they were released. The Jail makes available to inmates copies of the Bible and the Quran (Koran), but no other religious books. Inmate Ivan requested a copy of a religious book central to his recognized, but relatively small, sect. This book urges the religious use of a hallucinogenic sacramental tea. Ivan has requested permission to have the hallucinogenic sacramental tea on a weekly basis as part of his religious observances. Ivan’s request for the book was denied on the basis that it encourages illegal drug usage. His request for permission to have the hallucinogenic sacramental tea was denied for the same reason. 1. What challenges under the United States Constitution, if any, could Ivan reasonably raise to the dining hall quotations, and what is the likely outcome? Discuss. 2. What challenges under the United States Constitution, if any, could Ivan reasonably raise to the denial of his requests for the book and the tea, and what is the likely outcome? Discuss.

Question 2 - February, 2018

Wendy, a widow, owned a house in the city and a ranch in the country. She created a valid inter vivos trust, naming herself and her daughter, Dot, as co-trustees, and providing that she had the power to revoke or amend the trust at any time in writing, by a document signed by her and delivered to her and Dot as co-trustees. At Wendy's death, Dot was to become the sole trustee, and was directed to hold the assets in trust for the benefit of Wendy' s sister, Sis, until Sis's death. At Sis's death, the trust was to terminate and all assets be distributed to Dot. The sole asset in the trust was Wendy's ranch. Years later, Wendy prepared a valid will in which she stated, ''I hereby revoke the trust I previously established, and leave my house and my ranch to my son, Sam, as trustee, to be held in trust for the benefit of my brother, Bob. Five years after my death the trust shall terminate, and all assets then remaining in the trust shall be distributed outright to Sam.'' Wendy died. Following her death, both Dot and Sam were surprised to find her will. Dot has refused to serve as trustee under the inter vivos trust, and claims that, as a result, the trust fails and that the ranch should immediately be given to her. Sam has agreed to serve as trustee under the testamentary trust, and claims that the ranch is part of the trust. Sam then sells the house, at fair market price, to himself in his individual capacity, and invests all the assets of the trust into his new business, Sam's Solar. Bob objects to sale of the house and to Sam' s investment. 1. What interests, if any, do Dot, Sam, and/or Bob have in the house and the ranch? Discuss. 2. What duties, if any, has Sam violated as trustee of the testamentary trust, and what remedies, if any, does Bob have against him? Discuss.

Question 1 - February, 2016

State X amended its anti-loitering statute by adding a new section 4, which reads as follows: A person is guilty of loitering when the person loiters, remains, or wanders about in a public place, or on that part of private property that is open to the public, for the purpose of begging. Alice, Bob, and Mac were separately convicted in a State X court of violating section 4. Alice was convicted of loitering for the purpose of begging on a sidewalk located outside the City's Public Center for the Performing Arts in violation of section 4. Bob was convicted of loitering for the purpose of begging on a waiting platform at a stop on City's subway system in violation of section 4. Mac was convicted of loitering for the purpose of begging in the lobby of the privately owned Downtown Lawyers Building located in the business district of City in violation of section 4. Alice, Bob, and Mac have each appea led their convictions, and their appeals have been consolidated in the State X appellate court. It has been stipulated that Alice, Bob, and Mac are indigent, that section 4 is not void for vagueness, and that the only issue on appeal concerns the validity of section 4 under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. How should the appellate court decide the three appeals, and why? Discuss.

Question 2 - July, 2004

Duce and Cody were arrested for an armed robbery. Duce was taken to the police station, where she was interrogated without Miranda warnings. After three hours of questioning, a police officer asked Duce if she would consent to a search of her automobile. Duce consented, and a search of her car revealed a handgun and items stolen in the robbery, which were seized by the officers. When told what the officers found, Duce confessed to driving the getaway car in the robbery. Cody, who did not know that Duce had confessed, then confessed and named Duce as the driver of the getaway car. At their joint trial on a charge of robbery, Duce moved to exclude her confession from evidence based solely on the failure of the police to give her Miranda warnings. Based only on that violation, the court granted the motion to exclude her confession. Duce also moved to exclude from evidence the handgun and the stolen items seized from her automobile, claiming that she was not aware that she had a right to refuse consent to search. The prosecutor conceded that the police had no authority to search the car absent consent, but asserted that Duce's consent was obtained without coercion. The court denied the motion, finding that the consent was voluntary. The handgun and the stolen items seized from Duce's car were admitted into evidence at the joint trial of Duce and Cody over objections by each defendant. Cody's confession, redacted to eliminate any reference to Duce, was admitted into evidence against Cody. At trial Duce testified, denying that she drove the getaway car and that she knew the handgun or the stolen items were in her car. She testified that she had loaned her car to Cody on the day of the robbery. In rebuttal the prosecutor called a police officer who testified, over objection by Duce, to the contents of Duce's confession and to the contents of Cody's complete unredacted confession implicating Duce as the driver of the getaway car. Assume that in each instance all appropriate constitutional and evidentiary objections were made. 1. Did the court err in admitting the handgun and the stolen items seized from Duce's car against Duce and Cody? Discuss. 2. Did the court err in admitting the police officer's testimony about Duce's confession? Discuss. 3. Did the court err in admitting the police officer's testimony about Cody's complete unredacted confession? Discuss.

Question 3 - February, 2001

Pam took an indefinite leave of absence from her job, sublet her apartment in State A, and went to care for her elderly mother in State B. Approximately six months later, while Pam was walking to her car in the parking lot of Don's Market in State B, Rita, a resident of State C, struck Pam with her car. In Rita's car were three friends from State C who were traveling through State B with Rita. The friends told the police officer called to the scene of the accident that Pam was reading a magazine as she walked across the parking lot and was therefore not watching where she was going. Pam told the police officer that she had just walked out from behind a large concrete column in the parking lot when Rita's car struck her. Pam sued Rita and Don's Market in federal court in State B. Pam's complaint sought $60,000 in damages against each defendant. It also asked the court for an injunction ordering Don's Market to tear down the concrete column in the parking lot. Don's Market moved to dismiss Pam's complaint on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion. Rita then moved for a change of venue of the action to federal court in State Con the grounds that she is a citizen of State C and that it would be a hardship for her and her witnesses to travel to State B for trial. The court denied Rita's motion for change of venue. Rita then filed a notice of appeal of the court's denial of her venue motion. The appellate court dismissed Rita 's appeal. 1. Was the trial court correct in denying the motion of Don's Market to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction? Discuss. 2. Was the trial court correct in denying Rita's motion for change of venue? Discuss. 3. Was the appellate court correct in dismissing Rita's appeal? Discuss.

Question 1 - July, 2001

Molly and Ruth were partners in the operation of a dry cleaning store. Recent government environmental regulations relating to dangers posed by dry cleaning fluids increased their exposure to liability and caused a decline in their business. Molly and Ruth decided to convert their partnership into Dryco, Inc. ("Dryco"), a corporation, to limit their potential personal liability. Molly and Ruth each contributed $20,000 in cash to Dryco. In return, each received a $15,000 promissory note from Dryco and 5,000 shares of stock with a value of $1 per share. Prior to incorporation, Molly entered into a contract on behalf of Dryco with Equipment Company ("EC") for the unsecured credit purchase of an environmentally safe dryer for $100,000. EC was aware that Dryco had not yet been formed. EC delivered the dryer one week after the incorporation, and Dryco used it thereafter and made monthly installment payments. Dryco had been incorporated in compliance with all statutory requirements, and Molly and Ruth observed all corporate formalities during the period of Dryco's existence. One year after incorporation, however, Dryco became insolvent and dissolved. At the time of the dissolution, Dryco's assets were valued at $50,000. Its debts totaled $120,000, consisting of the two $15,000 notes held by Molly and Ruth and a $90,000 balance due EC for the dryer. 1. As among EC, Molly, and Ruth, how should Dryco's $50,000 in assets be distributed? Discuss. 2. On what theory or theories, if any, can Molly and/or Ruth be held liable for the balance owed to EC? Discuss.

Question 3 - February, 2005

LawnCare Company (LawnCare) manufactured and sold a liquid weed killer for lawn care. Paula brought a personal injury suit against LawnCare when her children developed breathing problems after LawnCare’s weed killer was applied on her lawn. LawnCare entered into a valid retainer agreement with Andy, an attorney, to defend LawnCare in the action.&nbsp;&nbsp;Andy is a member and financial supporter of Citizens Concerned About Chemicals (C2AC), a consumer group that is currently lobbying for environmental regulations that would remove chemicals such as LawnCare’s weed killer from the market as unsafe. Andy provided pro bono free legal advice to C2AC in the past regarding an unrelated corporate matter, but did not enter into a formal attorney-client relationship with C2AC.&nbsp;&nbsp;Since Andy is convinced that his association with C2AC will not affect his representation of LawnCare, he did not tell LawnCare about his relationship with C2AC. LawnCare is impressed with Andy’s reputation as a litigator, and Andy did not want to jeopardize losing LawnCare as a client by discussing his private concerns about their chemicals.&nbsp;&nbsp;In response to an anonymous questionnaire sent to all C2AC members, Andy mentioned the publicly available information regarding Paula’s complaint filed against LawnCare, but did not provide any other details. One week after Andy returned the questionnaire to C2AC, Andy received a call from the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of LawnCare, who said a representative of C2AC had called to ask about Paula’s lawsuit. Andy told the CEO that he did not know where C2AC would have received that information from and recommended that LawnCare not disclose any details about the lawsuit.&nbsp;&nbsp;What ethical violations, if any, has Andy committed? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;Answer according to California and ABA authorities.

Question 4 - February, 2023

On April 1, Pat, a computer software consultant , entered into a written services contract with Danco , Inc. to write four computer programs for use by Danco in controlling its automated manufacturing machines. The contract provided that Danco would pay Pat $25,000 on completion of the work and that the programs were to be delivered to Danco no later than May 1.&nbsp; The contract stated , "This is the complete and entire contract between the parties, and no modification of this contract shall be valid unless it is in writing and signed by both parties." Pat entered into the contract in anticipation that it would lead to significant work from Danco in the future , and he consequently turned away opportunities to take on more lucrative work. On April 15, Pat called Chelsea, the President of Danco, who had executed the contract on behalf of Danco, and told her," I'm having some problems with program number 3, and I won't have it ready to deliver to you until at least May 8 - maybe closer to May 15. Also , I have some doubt about whether I can even write program number 4 at all because your computer hardware is nearly obsolete. But I'll get programs numbers 1 and 2 to you by May 1." Chelsea said in response , "I'm sorry to hear that. We really need all four programs. If you can't deliver until May 15, I guess I'll have to live with that." On April 28, Pat called Chelsea and said, "I've worked out the problems with programs numbers 3 and 4. I'll deliver them to you on May 12." Chelsea responded , "I've been meaning to call you. I'm going to start looking around for another consultant to do the work because I consider what you said in our April 15 telephone discussion to be a repudiation of our contract. My lawyer tells me that, because of the language in the contract, nothing I said to you in that conversation matters. You repudiated the contract , so we don't owe you anything." Can Pat prevail in a suit against Danco for breach of contract, and, if so, what is the measure of his damages? Discuss.

Question 1 - February, 2010

Betty is a physician. One of her patients was an elderly man named Al. Betty treated Al for Alzheimer's disease , but since she believed he was destitute, she never charged him for her services. One day Al said to Betty, "I want to pay you back for all you have done over the years. If you will care for me for the rest of my life, I will give you my office building. I'm frightened because I have no heirs and you are the only one who cares for me. I need to know now that I can depend on you." Betty doubted that Al owned any office building, but said nothing in response and just completed her examination of Al and gave him some medication. Two years passed. Al's health worsened and Betty continued to treat him. Betty forgot about Al's statement regarding the office building. One day Betty learned that Al was indeed the owner of the office building. Betty immediately wrote a note to Al stating, "I accept your offer and promise to provide you with medical services for the rest of your life." Betty signed the note, put it into a stamped envelope addressed to Al, and placed the envelope outside her front door to be picked up by her mail carrier when he arrived to deliver the next day's mail. Al died in his sleep that night. The mail carrier picked up Betty 's letter the following morning and it was delivered to Al's home a day later. The services rendered by Betty to Al over the last two years were worth several thousand dollars; the office building is worth millions of dollars. Does Betty have an enforceable contract for the transfer of the office building? Discuss.

Question 3 - July, 2011

Paula is the president and Stan is the secretary of a labor union that was involved in a bitter and highly-publicized labor dispute with City and Mayor. An unknown person surreptitiously recorded a conversation between Paula and Stan, which took place in the corner booth of a coffee shop during a break in the contract negotiations with City. During the conversation, Paula whispered to Stan, "Mayor is a crook who voted against allowing us to build our new union headquarters because we wouldn't pay him off." The unknown person anonymously sent the recorded conversation to KXYZ radio station in City. Knowing that the conversation had been surreptitiously recorded, KXYZ broadcast the conversation immediately after it received the tape. After the broadcast, Paula sued KXYZ for invasion of privacy in publishing her conversation with Stan. Mayor sued Paula and KXYZ for defamation. 1. Is Paula likely to succeed in her suit against KXYZ? Discuss. 2. Is Mayor likely to succeed in his suit against Paula and KXYZ? Discuss.

Question 4 - July, 2003

Larry leased in writing to Tanya a four-room office suite at a rent of $500 payable monthly in advance. The lease commenced on July 1, 2006. The lease required Larry to provide essential services to Tanya's suite. The suite was located on the 12th floor of a new 20-story office building. In November Larry failed to provide essential services to Tanya's suite on several occasions. Elevator service and running water were interrupted once; heating was interrupted twice; and electrical service was interrupted on three occasions. These services were interrupted for periods of time lasting from one day to one week. On December 5, the heat, electrical and running water services were interrupted and not restored until December 12. In each instance Tanya immediately complained to Larry, who told Tanya that he was aware of the problems and was doing all he could to repair them. On December 12, Tanya orally told Larry that she was terminating her lease on February 28, 2007 because the constant interruptions of services made it impossible for her to conduct her business. She picked the February 28 termination date to give herself ample opportunity to locate alternative office space. Tanya vacated the suite on February 28 even though between December 12 and February 28 there were no longer any problems with the leased premises. Larry did not attempt to relet Tanya's vacant suite until April 15. He found a tenant to lease the suite commencing on May 1 at a rent of $500 payable monthly in advance. On May 1, Larry brought suit against Tanya to recover rent for the months of March and April. On what theory could Larry reasonably assert a claim to recover rent from Tanya for March and April and what defenses could Tanya reasonably assert against Larry 's claim for rent? Discuss.

Question 1 - July, 2007

Victor had been dating Daniel's estranged wife, Wilma. Several days after seeing Victor and Wilma together, Daniel asked Victor to help him work on his pickup truck at a nearby garage. While working under the truck, Victor saw Daniel nearby. Then Victor felt gasoline splash onto his upper body. He saw a flash and the gasoline ignited. He suffered second-and third-degree burns. At the hospital, he talked to a police detective, who immediately thereafter searched the garage and found a cigarette lighter. Daniel was charged with attempted murder. At a jury trial, the following occurred:&nbsp; a. Tom, an acquaintance of Daniel, testified for the prosecution that Daniel had complained to Tom that Victor had "burned" him several times and stated that he (Daniel) would ''bum him one of these days."&nbsp; b. Victor testified for the prosecution that, while Victor was trying to douse the flames, Daniel laughed at him and ran out of the garage.&nbsp; c. At the request of the prosecutor, the judge took judicial notice of the properties of gasoline and its potential to cause serious bodily injury or death when placed on the body and ignited. In his defense, Daniel testified that he was carrying a gasoline container, tripped, and spilled its contents. He denied possessing the lighter, and said that the fire must have started by accident. He said that he ran out of the garage because the flames frightened him.&nbsp; d. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Daniel, "Isn't it true that the lighter found at the garage had your initials on it?" The prosecutor urged the jury to consider the improbability of Daniel's claim that he had accidentally spilled the gasoline.&nbsp; e. During a break in deliberations, one juror commented to the other jurors on the low clearance under a pickup truck parked down the street from the courthouse. The juror measured the clearance with a piece of paper. Back in the jury room, the jurors tried to see whether Daniel could have spilled the gasoline in the way he claimed. One juror crouched under a table and another held a cup of water while simulating a fall. After the experiment, five jurors changed their votes and the jury returned a verdict of guilty.&nbsp; Assume that, in each instance, all appropriate objections were made.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;1. Should the court have admitted the evidence in item a? Discuss.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;2. Should the court have admitted the evidence in item b? Discuss.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;3. Should the court have taken judicial notice as requested in item c? Discuss.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;4. Should the court have allowed the question asked in item d? Discuss.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;5. Was the jury's conduct described in item e proper? Discuss.&nbsp; Answer according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Question 4 - July, 2004

Sam, a widower, set up a valid, revocable inter vivos trust, naming himself as trustee, and providing that upon his death or incapacity his cousin, Tara, should be successor trustee. He did not name any additional trustee. He directed the trustee to distribute the income from the trust annually, in equal shares, to each of his three children, Ann, Beth, and Carol. He specified that, at the death of the last of the three named children, the trust was to terminate, and the remaining assets were to be distributed to his then living descendants, by representation. When he established the trust, he also executed a valid will pouring over all his additional assets into the trust. Two years later, Sam died. He was survived by Ann, Beth, and Carol. Within two months, Dave, age 25, began litigation to prove that he was also a child of Sam's, although Sam had never known of his existence. For three years after Sam's death, Tara administered the trust as trustee. Because Ann had very serious medical problems and could not work, and because Beth and Carol had sufficient assets of their own, Tara istributed nearly all of the trust income to Ann and little to Beth and Carol. After the court determined that Dave was in fact Sam's child, Dave claimed a share of the trust. Beth and arol have filed suit against Tara, claiming breach of fiduciary duties. Tara has submitted her resignation, and Beth and Carol have sought termination of the trust so that all assets may now be distributed outright to the beneficiaries now living. 1) What interests, if any, does Dave have in the trust assets? Discuss. Answer according to California law. 2) Are Beth and Carol likely to be successful in terminating the trust? Discuss. 3) Are Beth and Carol likely to be successful in suing Tara? Discuss.

Question 1 - February, 2012

Mary was a widow with two adult children, Amy and Bob. In 2010, Mary bought Gamma and Delta stock. She then sat at her computer and typed the following: This is my will. I leave the house to Amy and my stock to Bob. The rest, they can split. Mary printed two copies of the document. She signed and dated both copies in the presence of her best friend, Carol, and her neighbor, Ned. Carol had been fully advised of the contents and signed both copies. Although Ned had no idea as to the bequests, he declared that he was honored to be a witness and signed his name under Mary’s and Carol’s signatures on both copies. Mary placed one copy in her safe deposit box. In 2014, Mary married John. She soon decided to prepare a new will. She deleted the old document from her computer and tore up one copy. She forgot, however, about the other copy in her safe deposit box. On her corporate stationery with her business logo emblazoned on it, Mary wrote: I leave John my Gamma stock. My Delta stock, I leave to Bob. Amy is to get the house. Mary signed the document. She neither dated the document nor designated a recipient for her remaining property. In 2015, Mary sold her Delta stock and used the proceeds to buy Tango stock. In 2016, Mary died, survived by John, Amy, and Bob. Mary’s estate consists of Gamma stock, Tango stock, her house, and $200,000 in cash in separate property funds. What rights, if any, do Amy, Bob, and John have in the assets in Mary’s estate? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 1 - February, 2017

After paying for his gasoline at Delta Gas, Paul decided to buy two 75-cent candy bars. The Delta Gas store clerk, Clerk, was talking on the telephone, so Paul tossed $1.50 on the counter, pocketed the candy, and headed out. Clerk saw Paul pocket the candy, but had not seen Paul toss down the money. Clerk yelled, "Come back here, thief!" Paul said, "I paid . Look on the counter." Clerk replied, "I've got your license number, and I'm going to call the cops." Paul stopped. He did not want trouble with the police. Clerk told Paul to follow him into the back room to wait for Mark, the store manager, and Paul complied. Clerk closed, but did not lock, the only door to the windowless back room. Clerk paged Mark, who arrived approximately 25 minutes later and found Paul unconscious in the back room as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning. Mark had been running the engine of his personal truck in the garage adjacent to the back room. When he left to run an errand, he closed the garage, forgot to shut off the engine, and highly toxic carbon monoxide from the exhaust of the running truck had leaked into the seldom used back room. Mark attributed his forgetfulness to his medication, which is known to impair short-term memory. Paul survived but continues to suffer headaches as a result of the carbon monoxide poisoning. He recalls that, while in the back room, he heard a running engine and felt ill before passing out. A state statute provides: "No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, removing the key from the ignition, setting the brake thereon and, when standing upon any perceptible grade, turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway." 1. Can Paul maintain tort claims against (a) Clerk for false imprisonment and (b) Mark for negligence? Discuss. 2. Is Delta Gas liable for the acts of (a) Clerk and (b) Mark? Discuss.

Question 1 - July, 2006

Austin recently sold a warehouse to Beverly. The warehouse roof is made of a synthetic material called “Top-Tile.” During negotiations, Beverly asked if the roof was in good condition, and Austin replied, “I’ve never had a problem with it.” In fact, the manufacturer of Top-Tile notified Austin last year that the warehouse roof would soon develop leaks. The valid written contract to sell the warehouse specified that the property was being sold “as is, with no warranties as to the condition of the structure.” After Beverly bought the warehouse, the roof immediately started leaking. Beverly hired Lou, an experienced trial lawyer, and executed a valid retainer agreement. Beverly then sued Austin for rescission of the warehouse sale contract, on the bases of misrepresentation and non-disclosure. At trial, Lou offered the expert testimony of Dr. Crest, a chemical engineer who had testified in other litigation concerning Top-Tile roofs. Lou knew that Dr. Crest had previously testified that, “Top-Tile roofs always last at least five years.” Lou also knew from the manufacturer’s specifications that Top-Tile roofs seem to last indefinitely, but not in some climates. On cross-examination, Dr. Crest testified that, “Top-Tile roofs never last five years,” and that, “Climate is not a factor; Top-Tile roofs fail within five years everywhere in the world.” During closing argument, Lou repeated Dr. Crest’s statements and also said that Lou’s own inspection of the roof confirmed Dr. Crest’s testimony. 1. Will Beverly be able to rescind the contract with Austin on the basis of misrepresentation and/or non-disclosure? Discuss. 2. What, if any, ethical violations has Lou committed? Discuss. Answer according to California and ABA authorities.

Question 1 - February, 2018

Jiff, a California citizen who resides in Truckee, California, just west of Reno, Nevada, provides cleaning services. At Jiff’s request, customers submit written evaluations of his services so he can monitor their satisfaction.&nbsp;&nbsp;Jiff entered into a contract with Shearer, a Nevada citizen who operates a beauty salon in Reno, Nevada. The contract, signed in Reno, obligated Jiff to use due care in cleaning. One night while cleaning, Jiff accidentally broke an antique vase, which Shearer claimed was worth $100,000.&nbsp;&nbsp;Shearer sued Jiff for negligence in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, which includes Truckee. The complaint alleged that Jiff’s lack of due care caused breakage of the vase. Shearer moved to compel production of evaluations completed by Jiff’s customers in the past year. The court denied the motion.&nbsp;&nbsp;Following a trial, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of Jiff and the court entered judgment on the verdict. Shearer did not appeal.&nbsp;&nbsp;Six months later, Shearer sued Jiff again in the same court for breach of contract. The complaint alleged that Jiff’s lack of due care caused breakage of the vase.&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Was venue properly laid in the Eastern District of California? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Did the court err in denying Shearer’s motion to compel? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;3. May Jiff take advantage of the judgment in the first suit in defending against the second suit? Discuss.

Question 1 - July, 2021

Bath Stuff (Bath), a retailer located in Betaville, sent Neat Scents (Scents), an importer located in Sunville, a signed offer to purchase 1,000 individually wrapped candles at a price of $10,000, free on board (“FOB”) Betaville. Scents promptly sent Bath a signed acknowledgment accepting the offer, which also included the following language: “Some shipping boxes have external water damage. Contents of shipping boxes guaranteed to have no damage.” Bath did not respond to the acknowledgment. No other express warranties or disclaimers were stated in the offer or acknowledgment.&nbsp;&nbsp;Scents timely shipped the order to Bath’s warehouse using TruckCo, a third-party common carrier, at a freight cost of $400. One-quarter of the shipping boxes showed signs of water damage. Each shipping box contained candles that were individually wrapped for retail sale. All candles and individual wrapping were undamaged. When the shipment arrived, Bath’s employees noticed the water damage on some shipping boxes. They immediately rejected the shipment without opening any boxes, promptly notified Scents of the rejection, and refused to pay any amount.&nbsp;&nbsp;Scents paid TruckCo $500 to ship the candles back to Sunville and notified Bath that Scents intended to resell the candles. Scents promptly solicited bids from all of its customers and received the best offer, which it accepted, from Redemption Candles (Redemption) of $9,000, FOB Sunville.&nbsp;&nbsp;Bath promptly entered into a valid written contract with Hot Candles (Hot), an importer in Hatville, to purchase 1,000 replacement candles for $12,000, FOB Hatville. TruckCo was engaged to transport the candles from Hatville to Betaville. In transit, TruckCo’s truck was struck by lightning in a storm and all of the candles melted. TruckCo’s shipping contract disavows liability from acts of God, including lightning. Bath refused to pay for the candles and Hot refused to send replacement candles.&nbsp;&nbsp;Bath sued Scents for breach of contract and Scents countersued Bath. Bath sued Hot for breach of contract and Hot countersued Bath.&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Did Bath and Scents have a binding contract and, if so, did either party breach the contract? If there was a breach of contract, what damages are likely to be recovered, if any? Discuss.&nbsp;2. Has Bath or Hot breached their contract? If so, what damages are likely to be recovered, if any? Discuss

Question 1 - July, 2022

Officer Will, a police officer, stopped Calvin, who was driving a rental car at five miles an hour over the speed limit. Calvin gave legally valid consent to search the car. Officer Will discovered a substantial quantity of cocaine in the console between the two front seats and arrested Calvin. After being given and waiving his Miranda rights, Calvin explained that he was driving the car for his friend, Donna. He said that Donna was going to meet him at a particular destination to collect her cocaine, which belonged to her. Hoping to obtain a favorable plea bargain, Calvin offered to cooperate with the police. The police then arranged for Calvin to deliver the cocaine. When Donna met Calvin at the destination, she got into the car with Calvin. She was then arrested. Each was charged with and tried separately for distribution of cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine.&nbsp; Donna's trial began while Calvin's case was still pending.&nbsp; At Donna's trial, the following occurred:&nbsp;(1) The prosecutor called Officer Will, who testified to Calvin's statements after his arrest concerning Donna's role in the transaction.&nbsp; (2) The prosecutor then called Ned, an experienced detective assigned to the Narcotics Bureau, who testified that high level drug dealers customarily use others to transport their drugs for them.&nbsp; &nbsp;In the defense case, Donna testified that she was not a drug dealer and that she knew nothing about the cocaine. She stated that she was merely meeting Calvin because he was an old friend who had called to say he was corning to town and would like to see her.&nbsp;(3) Donna further testified that when she was in the car with Calvin, she found a receipt for the rental car, which showed that Calvin had rented it six months prior to his arrest. She offered a copy of the receipt into evidence. The court admitted the document in evidence.&nbsp; (4) On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Donna whether she had lied on her income tax returns.&nbsp;&nbsp;The prosecutor had no evidence that Donna had lied on her income tax returns, but believed that it was likely on the basis that drug dealers do not generally report their income. Donna denied lying on her income tax returns.&nbsp;&nbsp;Assuming that, in each instance, all the appropriate objections were made, should the evidence in numbers 1, 2, and 3 have been admitted, and should the cross-examination in 4 have been allowed?&nbsp; &nbsp;Discuss. Answer according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Question 6 - February, 2007

In 1989, Herb and Wendy married while domiciled in Montana, a non-community property state. Prior to the marriage, Wendy had borrowed $25,000 from a Montana bank and had executed a promissory note in that amount in favor of the bank. Herb and Wendy, using savings from their salaries during their marriage, bought a residence, and took title to the residence as tenants in common. In 1998, Herb and Wendy moved to California and became domiciled here. They did not sell their Montana house. In 1999, Herb began having an affair with Ann. Herb told Ann that he intended to divorce Wendy and marry her (Ann), and suggested that they live together until dissolution proceedings were concluded. Ann agreed, and Herb moved in with her. Herb told Wendy that he was going to move into his own apartment because he "needed some space." Ann assumed Herb's last name, and Herb introduced her to his friends as his wife. Herb and Ann bought an automobile with a loan. They listed themselves as husband and wife on the loan application, and took title as husband and wife. Herb paid off the automobile loan out of his earnings. In the meantime, Herb continued to spend occasional weekends with Wendy, who was unaware of Herb's relationship with Ann. Wendy urged Herb to consult a marriage counselor with her, which he did, but Herb did not disclose his relationship with Ann. In 2003, Wendy and Ann learned the facts set forth in the preceding paragraphs. Wendy promptly filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, asserting a 50% interest in the Montana house and in the automobile. At the time of filing, the Montana bank was demanding payment of $8,000 as the past-due balance on Wendy's promissory note which has been reduced to a judgment. Also at the time of filing, Ann had a $ 15,000 bank account in her name alone, comprised solely of her earnings while she was living with Herb. 1. What rights do Herb, Wendy, and Ann each have in: a. The residence in Montana? b. The automobile? c. The $ 15,000 bank account? 2. What property may the Montana bank reach to satisfy the past-due balance on Wendy 's promissory note? Answer according to California law.

Question 2 - February, 2004

Herb and Wendy, residents of California, married in 2001. Herb worked as an accountant. Wendy was an avid coin collector who hoped someday to tum her hobby into a profitable business. Prior to marriage, they had entered into a prenuptial agreement providing that each spouse's wages would be his or her separate property. On Wendy's birthday in 2002, Herb gave Wendy a drawing by a famous artist. Herb paid for the drawing with $15,000 that his parents had given him. Wendy hung the drawing in their bedroom. In 2003, Wendy opened CoinCo, a shop specializing in rare coins. She capitalized the business with a $10,000 inheritance that she had received when her grandfather died. Wendy worked at the shop alone every day. Customers appreciated her enthusiasm about coin collecting and her ability to obtain special coins at reasonable prices. Over time, Wendy learned that she had acquired a number of highly valuable coins. There was also a renewed interest in coin collecting due to the discovery of several boxes of old coins found buried in the area. Although Wendy's services at the shop were worth $40,000 per year, she took an annual salary of $25,000. She also paid $5,000 in household expenses from the business earnings each year. In 2008, Herb and Wendy separated, and Wendy filed for dissolution of marriage. At that time, CoinCo was worth $150,000, and the drawing was worth $30,000. In 2009, before trial of the dissolution proceeding, Wendy was disabled by a serious illness and had to be hospitalized. She closed Coin Co while she was in the hospital , and the value of the business fell to $100,000 by the time of trial. Her hospital bill was not covered by health insurance. In the dissolution proceeding, Wendy claims that the prenuptial agreement is valid and Herb claims that it is not. What are Herb's and Wendy's respective rights and liabilities in: 1. The drawing ? Discuss. 2. CoinCo? Discuss. 3. The hospital bill? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 6 - February, 2010

Jim and Fred armed themselves with handguns and drove to a store on Avon Street. They both went into the store, drew their guns, and demanded that Salma, an employee, give them the store’s money. After Salma handed Jim the money, he nervously dropped his gun. The gun discharged when it hit the floor, and the bullet hit and killed Chris, a store customer. Salma then got a shotgun from under the counter and shot Fred, killing him. Jim picked up his gun, ran out of the store, and drove back to his apartment.&nbsp;&nbsp;Later that evening, Jim saw Salma while walking down Park Street. Thinking that he could eliminate her as a witness, Jim shot at Salma with his gun, but the bullet missed her. Jim then drove away in his car.&nbsp;&nbsp;A few minutes later, Police Officer Bakari saw Jim driving down the street. Officer Bakari, who had no knowledge of the events at the store or on Park Street, pulled Jim over because Jim looked nervous. When Jim got out of his car, Officer Bakari noticed a bulge under his shirt. Officer Bakari then patted Jim down and found Jim’s gun. Officer Bakari arrested Jim for possession of a concealed firearm and seized the gun.&nbsp;&nbsp;1. With what crime(s) could Jim reasonably be charged regarding the events at the store? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;2. With what crime(s) could Jim reasonably be charged regarding the incident on Park Street? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, can Jim successfully move to suppress Jim’s gun from being introduced into evidence at trial? Discuss.

Question 1 - February, 2022

Study California Bar Exam Essay Subject Business Associations

Arnold and Betty agreed to launch a business selling a durable paint that Arnold had developed and patented. They agreed to share all profits and to act as equal owners. Betty agreed to contribute $100,000 to the business venture. Arnold agreed to contribute his patent for durable paint. Arnold told Betty that he thought the patent was worth $100,000. He did not tell Betty that he had previously tried to sell the patent to several reputable paint companies but was never offered more than $50,000. Arnold and Betty agreed that Betty would be responsible for market research and marketing and Arnold would be responsible for incorporating the business and taking care of any other steps needed to start the enterprise.&nbsp;&nbsp;Arnold first located a building within which to operate the business, owned by Landlord Co., and entered into a one-year lease in the name of Durable Paint, Inc. Subsequently, after Arnold took the necessary steps, Durable Paint, Inc. was incorporated. At the corporation’s first board of directors meeting, Arnold and Betty were named as sole directors and officers. During that meeting, Arnold and Betty voted for the corporation to assume all rights and liabilities for the lease and to accept assignment of Arnold’s patent rights.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over the next six months, Durable Paint, Inc. faced unforeseen and costly manufacturing and supply problems. At the end of the first six months, the corporation had exhausted all its capital and was two months behind on rent. To make matters worse, a competitor developed a far superior product, making Durable Paint, Inc.’s patent effectively worthless. Durable Paint, Inc. had no other assets.&nbsp;&nbsp;Landlord Co. sued Arnold and Betty personally for damages for breach of the lease.&nbsp;&nbsp;Betty sued Arnold.&nbsp;1. On what theory or theories might Arnold be found personally liable for damages to Landlord Co.? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;2. On what theory or theories might Betty be found personally liable for damages to Landlord Co.? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;3. On what theory or theories might Arnold be found personally liable for damages to Betty? Discuss.

Question 5 - February, 2022

Stage, Inc. ("SI") is a properly formed close corporation. SI's Articles of Incorporation include the following provision: "SI is formed for the sole purpose of operating comedy clubs." SI has a three-member Board of Directors, consisting of Al, Betty, and Charlie, none of whom is a shareholder. Some time ago, Charlie persuaded Al and Betty that SI should expand into a new business direction, real estate development. After heated discussions, the board approved and entered into a contract with Great Properties ("GP"), a construction company, committing substantial SI capital to the construction of a new shopping mall, which was set to break ground shortly. Although Charlie remained enthusiastic, Al and Betty changed their minds about the decision to expand beyond SI's usual business. SI was struggling financially to keep its comedy clubs open. Al and Betty decided to avoid Si's contract with GP in order to devote all of Si's capital to its comedy clubs. Last month, GP approached Charlie about another real estate project under development. GP was building a smaller mall on the other side of town and was seeking investors. Aware that Al and Betty were unhappy about the earlier contract with GP, Charlie believed that Si's board would not approve any further investments in real estate. As a result, Charlie decided to invest his own money in the endeavor without mentioning the project to anyone at SI. Meanwhile, Al and Betty have come to suspect that Charlie has been skimming corporate funds for his personal activities, and, although they have little proof, they want to oust Charlie as a director. 1. Under what theory or theories might SI attempt to avoid its contractual obligation to GP and what is the likelihood of success? Discuss. 2. Has Charlie violated any duties owed to SI as to the smaller mall? Discuss . 3. Under what theory or theories might Al and Betty attempt to oust Charlie from the Board of Directors and what is the likelihood of success? Discuss.

Question 6 - February, 2009

Alice is a director and Bob is a director and the President of Sportco, Inc. (SI), a sporting goods company. SI owns several retail stores. Larry, an attorney, has performed legal work for SI for ten years. Recently, Larry and Carole were made directors of SI. SI has a seven-person board of directors. Prior to becoming a SI director, Carole had entered into a valid written contract with SI to sell a parcel of land to SI for $500,000. SI planned to build a retail store on the parcel. After becoming a director, Carole learned confidentially that her parcel of land would appreciate in value if she held it for a few years because it was located next to a planned mall development. At dinner at Larry's home, Carole told Larry about the planned mall development. Carole asked for, and obtained, Larry's legal opinion about getting out of her contract with SI. Later, based on Larry's suggestions, Carole asked Bob to have SI release her from the contract. She did not explain, nor did Bob inquire about, the reason for her request. Bob then orally released Carole from her contract with SI. The next regular SI board meeting was attended only by Bob, Alice, and Larry. They passed a resolution to ratify Bob's oral release of Carole from her contract with SI. Larry never disclosed what Carole had told him about the proposed mall development. Three years later, Carole sold her parcel of land for $850,000 to DevelopCo, which then resold it for $1 million to SI. 1. Was Bob's oral release of Carole from her contract with SI effective? Discuss. 2. Was the resolution passed by Bob, Alice, and Larry to ratify Bob's oral release valid? Discuss. 3. Did Carole breach any fiduciary duty to SI? Discuss. 4. Did Larry commit any ethical violation? Discuss.

Question 3 - July, 2005

Acme Corporation was a publicly traded corporation that operated shopping malls. Because of an economic slowdown, many of Acme's malls contained unrented commercial space. Additionally, the existence of surplus retail space located near many of Acme's malls prevented Acme from raising rents despite increasing costs incurred by Acme. In June 2001, Sally, president and sole owner of Bigco, approached Paul, Acme's president. She proposed a cash-out merger, in which Bigco would purchase for cash all shares of Acme, and Acme would merge into Bigco. Sally offered $100 for each outstanding share of Acme's stock even though Acme's stock was then currently trading at $50 per share and historically had never traded higher than $60 per share. Paul, concerned about Acme's future, decided in good faith to pursue the merger. In July 2001, before discussing the deal with anyone, Paul telephoned his broker and purchased 5,000 shares of Acme at $50 per share. Paul then presented the proposed merger to Acme 's board of directors and urged them to approve it. The board met, discussed the difference between the current market share price and the offered price, and, without commissioning a corporate valuation study, voted to submit the proposed deal to a shareholder vote. The shareholders overwhelmingly approved the deal because of the immediate profit they would realize on their shares. Based solely on shareholder approval, the board unanimously approved the merger, and all shareholders received cash for their shares. In December 2001, shortly after completing the merger, Bigco closed most of the Acme malls and sold the properties at a substantial profit to a developer who intended to develop it for light industrial use. 1. Did Paul violate any federal securities laws? Discuss. 2. Did Paul breach any duties to Acme and/or its shareholders? Discuss. 3. Did the board breach any duties to Acme and/or its shareholders? Discuss.

Question 3 - February, 2002

Andy, Ruth, and Molly decided to launch a business called The Batting Average (TBA), which would publish a monthly newsletter with stories about major league baseball players. Andy, a freelance journalist, was responsible for writing the stories. Andy conducted all of his business activities via a close corporation called Baseball Stories, Inc., of which he was the only employee. Ruth was responsible for maintaining TBA's computerized subscriber lists, mailing the newsletter every month, and billing TBA subscribers. Molly provided all equipment necessary for TBA. Andy, Ruth, and Molly expressly agreed to the following: Molly would have exclusive authority to buy all equipment necessary for TBA; and TBA' s net profits , if any, would be equally divided among Andy, Ruth, and Molly. Andy subsequently wrote a story in the newsletter stating that Sam, a major league baseball player, had been taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs. Andy knew that the story was not true, but wrote it because he disliked Sam. As a result of the story, Sam's major league contract was terminated. While writing the story, Andy's computer failed. He bought a new one for TBA for $300 from The Computer Store. The Computer Store sent a bill to Molly, but she refused to pay it. Sam has sued Andy, Ruth, Molly, TBA, and Baseball Stories, Inc. for libel. The Computer Store has sued Andy, Ruth, Molly, and TBA for breach of contract. 1. How is Sam's suit likely to fare? Discuss. 2. How is The Computer Store's suit likely to fare? Discuss.

Question 5 - February, 2015

Acme Inc. is a corporation that has been profitable for several years and now holds $20 million cash in its treasury.&nbsp;&nbsp;Acme's board of directors consists of Brown (Acme's Chief Executive Officer), Chase (Acme's Chief Financial Officer), and ten other non-employee ("outside") directors.&nbsp;&nbsp;Acme's board of directors recently met to consider the best course of action with regard to the cash in its treasury. At this meeting, Brown and Chase strongly recommended that Acme pay a dividend to its shareholders. The board then heard a report from an outside consulting firm regarding the favorable prospects for Acme's expansion into a new line of business. After a lengthy discussion, the ten outside directors voted in favor of a resolution not to declare a dividend and instead to hold the accumulated cash for the corporation's future use. Brown and Chase voted against this resolution. The entire board of directors also voted unanimously to make a $100,000 cash contribution to a private university. Brown is a graduate of this university and a member of its board of trustees. The other Acme board members knew these facts at the time the board unanimously authorized the contribution.&nbsp;&nbsp;One of Acme's many shareholders, Davis, is upset about the board's decision not to declare a dividend. He sent a letter to Acme's board demanding inspection of Acme's records relating to this decision.&nbsp;&nbsp;Another Acme shareholder, Evan, filed a lawsuit against Acme and its board seeking orders that Acme pay a dividend to its shareholders and be enjoined from contributing $100,000 to the university.&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Did Acme's outside directors possess the authority to reject Brown’s and Chase's recommendation to pay a dividend from cash in the treasury? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Does Davis have a right to inspect Acme's records relating to the board meeting described above? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Is Evan likely to prevail in his suit for an order that the corporation pay a dividend? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;4. Is Evan likely to prevail in his suit to enjoin Acme from paying $100,000 to the private university? Discuss.

Question 2 - October, 2020

Adam owns 100% of the stock of Sellco, a corporation that sells houses. Sellco's board of directors consists of Adam and his wife Betty. Sellco owns 90% of the stock of Buildco, another corporation. Pat owns the remaining 10% of Buildco's stock. Buildco's business is home construction. Buildco's board of directors consists of Adam, Betty and Evan. Betty is the president of Buildco and, as such, is a salaried employee. Neither Adam nor Evan is an officer or employee of Buildco. Adam urged Buildco' s other directors (Betty and Evan) to approve an arrangement whereby Buildco would build houses and sell them to Sellco at cost. Sellco, in tum, would sell the homes for a profit. Based solely upon Adam's representation that the arrangement "made sense," Buildco's board unanimously approved this arrangement. Buildco thereafter commenced constructing homes exclusively for the purpose of selling them to Sellco. Buildco sold the houses at cost to Sellco, and Sellco sold the houses for a considerable profit. Pat objects to this arrangement because it deprives Buildco of the only source of money with which to pay dividends. What personal and/or derivative claims can Pat reasonably assert against Sellco, Adam, Betty and/or Evan, and is he likely to succeed on each claim? Discuss.

Question 2 - February, 2001

Online, Inc. was duly incorporated as an Internet service provider. Its articles of incorporation authorized issuance of 1,000 shares of stock at $1,000 par value. Online initially issued only 550 shares to its shareholders as follows: Dick and Sam each received 200 shares and Jane received 150 shares. Online's Board of Directors (composed of Jane, Sam, and Harry) named Jane as the Chief Executive Officer and named Harry as General Counsel. Online's business grew substantially in the following months. Still, Online was short on cash; as a result, instead of paying Jane $10,000 of her salary in cash, it issued her 50 additional shares with the approval of its Board of Directors. Looking to expand its operations, Online sought to enter a strategic partnership with LargeCo, Inc. Jane had learned about LargeCo through Harry's wife, who she knew was the majority shareholder of LargeCo. Jane directed Harry to negotiate the terms of the transaction with LargeCo. In the course of Harry's negotiations with LargeCo, LargeCo offered to acquire the assets of Online in exchange for a cash buy-out of $1,000,000. Harry telephoned Jane and Sam; Jane and Sam agreed with Harry that the offer was a good idea; and Harry accepted LargeCo's offer. Two days after completion of the transaction, LargeCo announced a joint venture with TechCo, which was solely owned by Harry. The joint venture was valued at $10,000,000. In its press release, TechCo described the joint venture as a "remarkable synergy of LargeCo's new technology with TechCo's large consumer base." The following week, Dick learned of LargeCo's acquisition of Online's assets. An expert in technology matters, he was furious about the price and terms of the acquisition, believing that the value of Online had been seriously underestimated. 1. What are Dick's rights and remedies, if any, against Jane, Sam and/or Harry? Discuss. 2. What ethical violations, if any, has Harry committed? Discuss. Answer according to California and ABA authorities.

Question 5 - July, 2015

Years ago, Art incorporated Retail, Inc. He paid $100 for its stock and lent it $50,000. He elected himself and two family members to the Board of Directors, which in turn elected him as President and approved a ten-year lease for a store. He managed the store and was paid 10% of Retail’s gross revenues as compensation. Subsequently, Barbara bought 20% of Retail’s stock from Art. Retail’s board approved a contract to buy 30% of the inventory of XYZ Co., a company owned by Art. Subsequently, Art began taking home some of Retail’s inventory without paying for it. Retail had net profits in some years and net losses in others. It paid dividends in some years, but not in others. In some years, Retail’s board met three times a year; in others, it never met. Recently, Retail ceased business. Its assets were limited to $5,000 in cash. Among the claims against Retail was one by Supplier, who was owed $10,000 for computer equipment. Another claim was Art’s, for the $50,000 that he had lent and had just become due. Supplier and Barbara, individually, filed lawsuits against Retail and Art. 1. On what legal theory, if any, can Supplier reasonably seek to recover against Art on its claim against Retail? Discuss. 2. Does Barbara have a cause of action against Art, either derivatively or personally? Discuss. 3. If Retail is forced into bankruptcy court, will Art be able to collect from Retail any portion of his $50,000 loan? Discuss.

Question 4 - February, 2017

Beth, Charles, and David are the directors of Web, Inc. (Web), a corporation that is in the business of creating websites.&nbsp;Adco, Inc. (Adco), a corporation that markets computer advertising, had an urgent need for a complex website that would cost thousands of dollars to create. Adco approached Web about creating the website. Adco explained that it did not have the cash to pay for the work but claimed that it was a well-established corporation and asked Web to extend credit for the work.Beth, Charles, and David unanimously agreed to take on the work, conditioned upon a prior review of Adco's financial statements and a determination of Adco's credit-worthiness. After learning this, Adco contacted David and told him that the sooner Web could start on the website, the sooner Adco would be able to pay Web. David was anxious to obtain Adco's business. He falsely told Beth and Charles that he had obtained and reviewed Adco's financial statements and that, based on his review, "we should proceed with the work." Beth and Charles, without further inquiry, agreed, and Web created the costly website. Adco is unable to pay Web. Beth, Charles, and David have now learned that Adco's shareholders have regularly taken its funds for their personal use. In an unrelated transaction, Charles received a call from his friend Sam who wanted Web to create a new game website. Charles told Sam that the new game website was such a small job that he could do it at home for less money than Web. Charles told Sam to send the payment for the game website to Charles at his home. Sam was pleased with the work and sent the check to Charles as requested. Shortly afterwards, Beth and David learned of this transaction. 1. What duties to Web, if any, have been breached by Beth, Charles, and David regarding the money lost on the Adco job? Discuss. 2. What rights, if any, does Web have against Adco's shareholders for Adco's failure to pay for the website? Discuss. 3. What rights, if any, does Web have against Charles regarding the contract with Sam? Discuss.

Question 4 - July, 2006

Corp is a publicly held corporation whose stock is registered under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The following sequence of events occurred in 2003: January 2: Corp publicly announced that it expected a 25% revenue increase this year. March 1: A Corp director ("Director") sold 1,000 Corp shares for $25 each. June 15: Corp learned that, because of unforeseen expenses, its revenues would decrease by 50% this year, contrary to its January 2 announcement. June 16: A Corp officer ("Officer") consulted his lawyer ("Lawyer") for personal tax advice. Officer mentioned, among other things, the probable devaluation of his Corp stock. June 17: Lawyer telephoned his stockbroker and bought a put option for $1,000 from OptionCo . The put option entitled Lawyer to require OptionCo to buy 1,000 Corp shares from Lawyer for $20 per share. June 18: Corp publicly announced that its revenues would decrease by 50% this year. Its stock price fell from $30 to $5 per share. June 19: Lawyer bought 1,000 Corp shares at $5 per share and required OptionCo to buy the shares for $20,000 pursuant to the put option. July 1: Director bought 1,000 Corp shares for $5 per share. 1.In each of the foregoing events, which of the actions by Director, Officer, and Lawyer constituted a violation of federal securities laws and which did not? Discuss. 2.Did Lawyer violate any rules of professional responsibility? Discuss.

Question 1 - July, 2003

Alice's and Bob's law firm, AB Law, is a limited liability partnership. The firm represents Sid, a computer manufacturer. Sid sued Renco, his chip supplier, for illegal price-fixing. Renco' s lawyer asked Alice for a brief extension of time to respond to Sid's interrogatories because he was going on a long-planned vacation. Sid told Alice not to grant the extension because Renco had gouged him on chip prices. She denied the request for an extension. Sid also told Alice that he'd had enough of Renco setting the case's pace, so he wasn't going to appear at his deposition scheduled by Renco for the next week, and that he'd pay his physician to write a note excusing him from appearing. Alice did nothing in response. In the course of representing Sid, Alice learned that Sid planned a tender offer for the publicly traded shares of chipmaker, Chipco. Alice bought 10,000 Chipco shares. By buying the 10,000 Chipco shares, she drove up the price that Sid had to pay by $1 million. When Alice sold the 10,000 Chipco shares, she realized a $200,000 profit. 1. What ethical violations, if any, has Alice committed regarding : a. The discovery extension? Discuss. b. The physician 's note? Discuss . c. The Chipco tender offer? Discuss . Answer according to California and ABA authorities. 2. What claims, if any, does Sid have against Alice, AB Law, and Bob? Discuss.

Question 3 - July, 2014

Andrew, Bob, and Christine are attorneys who formed a law firm. They filed no documents with the Secretary of State or any other state office. They equally share the firm’s profits after paying all expenses and make all business and management decisions. Associate attorneys are paid a fixed salary, plus 25% of gross billings for any clients they bring to the firm. Senior attorneys are paid based upon the number of hours they bill plus an annual bonus if they bill more than 2,000 hours in a year. The senior attorney bonus pool is equal to 5% of firm profits, which is split equally by the number of qualifying senior attorneys each year. Andrew, Bob, and Christine agreed to bestow the title “non-equity partner” on senior attorneys even though senior attorneys have no management authority. The firm website and business cards for senior attorneys list their title as “partner.” Martha, a senior attorney, met Nancy at a social function. Nancy told Martha about her business’s legal problems. Martha gave Nancy her business card. After looking at the card, Nancy asked Martha if as a “partner” she can agree to the firm handling her legal problems at a reduced hourly rate in return for a promise of future business. Martha was aware that the firm has a strict policy of not reducing hourly rates, but signed a written agreement for it to handle Nancy’s legal matters at a reduced hourly rate. 1. What type of business entity is the firm using to conduct business? Discuss. 2. Are the associate attorneys employees, partners, members, or shareholders of the firm? Discuss. &nbsp; 3. Are the senior attorneys employees, partners, members, or shareholders of the firm? Discuss. &nbsp; 4. Is the firm bound by the agreement that Martha signed with Nancy? Discuss.

Question 5 - February, 2020

In 2011, Molly and Lenny started a computer software business. Molly prepared marketing materials and Lenny made sales calls. During the first year, Lenny sold 10 copies of certain software programs for $50,000 each. The business had a net profit of $480,000 and Molly and Lenny each received $240,000. In January 2012, Molly and Lenny hired an attorney to incorporate their business under the name "Software Inc." The attorney properly prepared all necessary documents to incorporate the business but carelessly failed to file them with the Secretary of State. Lenny continued to make sales calls to sell the software. He also sold a five-year service contract developed by Molly. Due to brisk sales, Software Inc. projected income of about $300,000 per year for the next five years from the service contracts alone. Software Inc. obtained a $100,000 business loan from National Bank secured by the accounts receivable for the service contracts. In May 2012, Lenny had an automobile accident, caused solely by his own negligence, on the way to visit a prospective buyer. The accident injured a pedestrian. As a result of the accident, Lenny stopped working and sales collapsed. In July 2012, Software Inc. went out of business, leaving negligible assets and the unpaid loan to National Bank. 1. Is Software Inc., Molly, and/or Lenny liable to the pedestrian for the injury? Discuss. 2. Is Software Inc., Molly, and/or Lenny liable to National Bank for the loan? Discuss.

Question 6 - February, 2013

The Articles of Incorporation for Corp Inc. (Corp) provide that it is a closely-held corporation formed for the purpose of manufacturing televisions. Corp has been highly profitable in this business for twenty years. The Articles also provide that, for the purpose of electing directors, each shareholder shall have one vote per share that they own multiplied by the number of open director positions, i.e., cumulative voting.&nbsp;&nbsp;Aliyah and Bowen each owned sufficient shares to elect, through cumulative voting, one of the three directors of Corp. Aliyah and Bowen entered into a signed written agreement stating that they will vote to elect themselves to the board of Corp and agree on the election of any successor board members and, if they cannot agree on a particular successor, will abstain from voting in that election. They also agreed that, once they became directors, they would select Palmer as the new president of Corp. The agreement stipulated that it is binding on all subsequent owners of the shares. Aliyah and Bowen stamped “Subject to Agreement” on the backs of all of their share certificates.&nbsp;&nbsp;Aliyah and Bowen were subsequently elected to Corp’s board of directors, along with Chantal. At the next board meeting, Aliyah and Bowen voted to select Palmer as the new president of Corp, Chantal abstained, and Palmer was named as president.&nbsp;&nbsp;Palmer immediately instituted several costly changes intended to shift Corp solely into the manufacturing of bicycles. Palmer reasoned that, by the time the directors heard anything about the changes, Corp would be so profitable that no one would complain.&nbsp;&nbsp;Bowen discovered almost immediately what Palmer had done. Bowen then informed Daya of all of these facts, sold his shares to her, and resigned from the board. Esgar, a shareholder of Corp since its inception, wishes to seek legal relief regarding Palmer’s actions and Corp’s change to solely manufacturing bicycles.&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Is the agreement between Aliyah and Bowen valid? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Is Daya bound by Aliyah and Bowen’s voting agreement with respect to the election of successor directors? Discuss.&nbsp;3. On what theory or theories, if any, might Esgar bring an action to enjoin Corp from moving solely into manufacturing bicycles, and what is the likely outcome? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;4. On what theory or theories, if any, might Esgar bring an action for damages against Palmer related to Corp moving solely into manufacturing bicycles, and what is the likely outcome? Discuss.

Question 4 - July, 2022

Testco, Inc. conducts market surveys, and is solely owned by Amy, Ben, and Carl. Each paid $50 for one-third of Testco' s no-par shares. Amy and Ben, respectively, are Testco's president and secretary and its only two directors. Carl holds no office and is not involved in any aspect of Testco's business. Amy and Ben are scrupulous about holding directors' meetings to conduct corporate business and to make monthly distributions to the shareholders of almost all cash on hand. As a result of the latter practice, Testco has little cash on hand and frequently finds itself in the position of negotiating extensions for payment of its debt. While Ben was on vacation, Examco called Amy, asking to enter into a one-year contract with Testco. Amy said that if Examco would agree to a ten-year contract, Testco would grant its standard fifty-percent discount. Examco agreed, and Amy signed the contract in the following manner: "Testco, by Amy, President." When Ben returned, he said that he had thought for some time that Testco' s standard fifty-percent discount was unwise, and convinced Amy to revoke the contract with Examco. Examco wants to sue Testco, Amy, Ben, and Carl for damages. If found liable, Testco will not be able to pay. On what theory or theories may Examco bring an action for recovery of damages against: 1. Testco? Discuss. 2. Amy, Ben, and Carl as individuals? Discuss.

Question 4 - February, 2012

Rita and Fred wanted to form a corporation to be named "Rita's Kitchen, Inc." (RKI) for the purpose of opening a restaurant. They contacted 75 friends who agreed individually to become investors in RKI. Five of these investors also agreed to serve on the RKI Board of Directors with Rita and Fred. Rita and Fred entered into a five-year lease with Landlord for restaurant space, naming "Rita's Kitchen, Inc., a corporation in formation" as the tenant. They signed the lease as "President" and “Secretary,” respectively. Rita and Fred retained Art as their attorney to form the corporation. They told Art that 75 of their friends had committed to invest and become shareholders of RKI. Irv was a duly appointed representative of the 75 investors. Rita, Fred and Irv met with Art, and they agreed that Art would represent Rita, Fred, and all the investors. After extensive discussions with Rita, Fred, and Irv about the operation of the proposed business, Art agreed to prepare the necessary documentation to incorporate RKI. Later, outside of Irv's presence, Rita and Fred asked Art to draft a shareholder agreement that would specifically designate Rita and Fred as permanent directors and officers of RKI and set Rita and Fred's annual salaries at 12.5% of the corporate earnings. Without further discussion, Art properly formed the corporation. He then prepared the shareholder agreement, including the terms that Rita and Fred had requested. The 75 investors each purchased their shares of stock and signed the shareholder agreement. RKI operated for one year but failed to make a profit. RKI ceased operations and currently owes three months of back rent under the lease. 1. Can Landlord recover the unpaid rent from Rita and Fred individually ? Discuss. 2. Is the shareholder agreement valid? Discuss. 3. What ethical violations, if any, has Art committed? Discuss, including distinctions, if any, between the ABA Model Rules and California authorities. Do not discuss federal and state securities laws.

Question 2 - February, 2007

Able, Baker, and Charlie are successful attorneys who set up a law firm under the name "ABC Legal Services LLP" ("ABC LLP"). They agreed to share profits and losses equally. Able prepared the documents required to register the firm as a limited liability partnership and instructed his assistant to file them with the Secretary of State. Inadvertently and unbeknownst to Able, Baker, and Charlie, Abie's assistant never filed the appropriate documents. Able, Baker, and Charlie leased office space for four attorneys in the name of ABC LLP. They rented the extra office to David , an attorney who had a small solo law practice, for a monthly rent of the greater of $1100 or 10% of his billings. David committed malpractice arising from a case that he undertook soon after he moved into the ABC LLP office space. Able, Baker, and Charlie hired Jack as head of computer services. Jack had just graduated from college with a degree in computer science. Jack, in an effort to save ABC LLP the cost of Internet access budgeted at $500 a month, accessed and used the wireless network of an adjacent law firm for free. Able, Baker, and Charlie were surprised at the savings, but did not inquire how it came about. Their use of the network resulted in the disclosure to a third party of confidential client information for one of Abie's clients, which caused the client economic loss. 1. May Able, Baker, and Charlie each be held personally liable for the economic loss to Abie's client caused by the disclosure of confidential client information? Discuss. 2. May Able, Baker, and Charlie each be held personally liable for David's malpractice? Discuss. 3. Have Able, Baker, and Charlie breached any rules of professional conduct? Discuss. Answer this question according to California and ABA authorities.

Question 2 - February, 2010

Alfred, Beth, and Charles orally agreed to start ABC Computers ("ABC"), a business to manufacture and sell computers. Alfred contributed $100,000 to ABC, stating to Beth and Charles that he wanted to limit his liability to that amount. Beth, who had technical expertise, contributed $50,000 to ABC. Charles contributed no money to ABC but agreed to act as salesperson . Alfred, Beth, and Charles agreed that Beth would be responsible for designing the computers, and that Charles alone would handle all computer sales. ABC opened and quickly became successful, primarily due to Charles' effective sales techniques. Subsequently, without the knowledge or consent of Alfred or Charles, Beth entered into a written sales contract in ABC's name with Deco, Inc. ("Deco") to sell computers manufactured by ABC at a price that was extremely favorable to Deco. Beth's sister owned Deco. When Alfred and Charles became aware of the contract, they contacted Deco and informed it that Beth had no authority to enter into sales contracts, and that ABC could not profitably sell computers at the price agreed to by Beth. ABC refused to deliver the computers, and Deco sued ABC for breach of contract. Thereafter, Alfred became concerned about how Beth and Charles were managing ABC. He contacted Zeta, Inc. ("Zeta"), ABC's components supplier. He told Zeta's president, "Don't allow Charles to order components; he's not our technical person. That's Beth's job." Charles later placed an order for several expensive components with Zeta. ABC refused to pay for the components, and Zeta sued ABC for breach of contract. Not long afterwards, ABC went out of business, owing its creditors over $500,000. 1. How should ABC's debt be allocated? Discuss. 2. Is Deco likely to succeed in its lawsuit against ABC? Discuss. 3. Is Zeta likely to succeed in its lawsuit against ABC? Discuss.

Question 4 - July, 2010

Bob owns 51 percent of the shares of Corp, a California corporation. Cate owns 30 percent. Others own the remaining shares. Bob and Cate have entered into a shareholder agreement stating they would vote their shares together on all matters, and that, if they fail to agree, Dave will arbitrate their dispute and Dave's decision will be binding. Bob and Cate also executed perpetual irrevocable proxies granting Dave the power to vote their shares in accordance with the terms of the shareholder agreement. Attorney Al handled Corp's incorporation and drafted the shareholder agreement and the proxies. Bob and Cate have been able to elect the entire board of directors every year. The board currently consists of Bob, Cate, and Bob's wife, Wanda. Bob and Wanda decided, as directors, to sell substantially all of Corp's assets to Bob's sister, Sally. Cate thinks the price is too low. Bob claims he no longer regards their shareholder agreement as binding. He has gone to Al for advice in the matter, and Al has agreed to provide it. At the shareholders' meeting at which the matter is to be put to a vote, Bob announces he is voting his shares in favor of the sale. Dave says that since Bob and Cate disagree, he is voting the shares against the sale. 1. Is the shareholder agreement between Bob and Cate enforceable? Discuss. 2. Are the perpetual proxies executed by Bob and Cate enforceable? Discuss. 3. Would any sale of Corp's assets to Sally be voidable? Discuss. 4. What ethical violations, if any, has Al committed? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;Answer according to California and ABA authorities. &nbsp;

Question 5 - February, 2011

Albert, an attorney , and Barry, a librarian, decided to incorporate a business to provide legal services for lawyers. Barry planned to perform legal research and draft legal memoranda. Albert intended to utilize Barry 's work after reviewing it to make court appearances and argue motions on behalf of other attorneys. Albert and Barry employed Carla, an attorney, to prepare and file all of the documentation necessary to incorporate the business, Lawco, Inc. ("Lawco"). Carla properly drafted all required documentation to incorporate Lawco under the state's general corporation law. The documentation provided that: Lawco shares are divided equally between Albert and Barry; Lawco profits will be distributed equally to Albert and Barry as annual corporate dividends; Barry is president and Albert is secretary. Albert and Barry opened their business in January, believing that Lawco was properly incorporated. In February, they purchased computer equipment in Lawco's name from ComputerWorks. The computer equipment was delivered to Lawco's office and used by Barry. Carla, however, neglected to file the articles of incorporation until late April. In May, Albert, without consulting anyone, contracted in Lawco's name to purchase office furniture for Lawco from Furniture Mart. On the same day, also without consulting anyone, Barry contracted in Lawco's name to purchase telephones for Lawco from Telco. 1. Is Lawco bound by the contracts with: a. ComputerWorks ? Discuss. b. Furniture Mart? Discuss. c. Telco? Discuss. 2. Has Albert committed any ethical violation? Discuss. &nbsp;Answer question number 2 according to California and ABA authorities.

Question 6 - February, 2008

Business Associations

Study California Bar Exam Essay Subject Civil Procedure

Pam and Patrick are residents of State A While visiting State B, they were hit by a truck owned and operated by Corporation, a freight business. Corporation is incorporated under the laws of Canada and has its headquarters there, where its President and Secretary are located. State B is the only state in which Corporation conducts its business. Corporation's drivers and other employees work out of its warehouse in State B. Pam and Patrick jointly filed a lawsuit against Corporation in federal district court in State A In their complaint, Pam demanded damages for personal injury in the amount of $70,000 and for property damage in the amount of $10,000; Patrick demanded damages in the amount of $6,000. Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The federal district court denied the motion. After trial, it entered judgment for Pam in the amount of $60,000 and for Patrick in the amount of $4,000. Corporation has appealed on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction. How should the court of appeals rule on each ground? Discuss.

Question 1 - July, 2012

Pat, a resident of State A, received a letter from Busco, a tour bus company that had been in business for about two months. Busco was incorporated and had its principal place of business in State B. The letter invited Pat to go on a tour of State C at a special introductory price. After Pat sent in her money, Busco sent Pat a tour brochure and ticket. Ed, also a resident of State A, saw an ad that Busco had placed once a week for the last several weeks in Ed's hometown newspaper for the same State C tour. The ad listed a State A telephone number to call for tickets. Ed called the telephone number and ordered and bought a ticket for the same tour as Pat and for the same price. Pat and Ed boarded the tour bus in State B. Upon entering State C, the bus veered off the road and hit a tree. Ed was not hurt, but Pat suffered serious injuries. The tour was canceled. Busco refused to reimburse passengers the price of their tickets. Ed sued Busco for breach of contract in state court in State A to recover the price of his ticket. Busco moved to dismiss the suit based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion. After trial, judgment was entered in favor of Ed. Thereafter, Pat sued Busco in state court in State A for breach of contract to recover the price of her ticket and for tort damages for her personal injuries. After Busco filed its answer, Pat filed a motion for summary judgment on both claims on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court denied Pat's motion. State A has a long-arm statute that authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. 1. Did the court rule correctly on Busco's motion to dismiss Ed's suit for lack of personal jurisdiction? Discuss. 2. Did the court rule correctly on Pat's motion for summary judgment on each of her claims on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel? Discuss. &nbsp;

Question 4 - February, 2006

Doctor implanted a valve in Patient's heart in State A, where both Doctor and Patient lived. The valve was designed in State B by Valvco. Valvco was incorporated in State C, but had its headquarters in State D. Patient was visiting State B when he collapsed due to his heart problems. Patient decided to remain in State B for the indefinite future for medical treatment. Patient sued Doctor and Valvco in state court in State B for $100,000, alleging that Valvco defectively designed the valve and Doctor negligently implanted it. Another patient had recently sued Valvco alleging that it defectively designed the valve, and had obtained a final judgment in her favor after trial on that issue. Doctor and Valvco each moved the state court to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. The state court granted Doctor's motion and denied Valvco's. Valvco then filed a notice in federal court in State B to remove the case. Patient immediately filed a motion in federal court to remand the case to state court. The federal court denied Patient's motion. Relying solely on the judgment in the other patient's action, Patient then filed a motion in federal court for summary adjudication of the issue that Valvco defectively designed the valve. The federal court granted the motion. 1. Did the state court properly grant Doctor's motion to dismiss? Discuss. 2. Did the state court properly deny Valvco's motion to dismiss? Discuss. 3. Did the federal court properly deny Patient's motion for remand? Discuss. 4. Did the federal court properly grant Patient's motion for summary adjudication? Discuss.

Question 1 - July, 2015

DuraTires manufactures and installs specially coated tires. DuraTires advertised that a scientific report declared that its tires will not go flat for the first 7,000 miles of use if driven properly. DuraTires' scientific report was created at the direction of its legal counsel and contained research on flat tire incidents involving DuraTires.&nbsp;&nbsp;Pam purchased four new tires from DuraTires and had them installed by Maurice, a mechanic. Pam drove 100 miles and one tire went flat, causing Pam to swerve and crash into another car. Pam was not physically injured in the accident. Pam gathered a written statement from the other driver, Wynne, who suffered a minor injury. Wynne’s statement was favorable to Pam’s case.&nbsp;Pam filed and properly served a complaint in federal court against DuraTires for breach of warranty and negligent installation and manufacture of the tires. The federal court had proper jurisdiction over Pam’s complaint. Pam alleged that she suffered property damage and emotional distress as a result of the accident.&nbsp;&nbsp;DuraTires filed a motion to dismiss for failure to join Maurice as a defendant. The court denied DuraTires' motion. DuraTires filed and properly served an answer to Pam's complaint.&nbsp;&nbsp;Pam served her initial disclosures on DuraTires, but did not produce Wynne’s statement. DuraTires filed and served motions to compel Pam to produce Wynne’s statement and for Pam to submit to a physical examination. The court granted both of DuraTires’ motions.&nbsp;&nbsp;DuraTires served its initial disclosures, but did not include the advertised scientific report. Pam met and conferred with DuraTires, which refused to produce its scientific report. Pam filed a motion to compel DuraTires to produce its scientific report. The court granted Pam's motion and ordered DuraTires to produce its scientific report.&nbsp;1. Did the court properly deny DuraTires’ motion to dismiss? Discuss.&nbsp;2. Did the court properly grant DuraTires' motions:&nbsp;&nbsp;A. To compel production of the statement from Wynne? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;B. To compel a physical examination of Pam? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Did the court properly order DuraTires to produce its scientific report? Discuss.

Question 1 - February, 2023

In March 2008, Pat, a citizen of State A, learned that Devon Corp. ("Devon"), a citizen of State B, may have been illegally releasing toxic chemicals into the air near her home. In February 2011, Pat sued Devon in federal court, alleging a cause of action for negligence and seeking damages for a persistent cough. The court had subject matter jurisdiction over Pat's lawsuit. During discovery, Pat requested Devon to produce all documents relating to reports by local residents about foul odors coming from its plant. Devon objected to Pat's discovery request, contending that the plant's odors came from legally produced and harmless chemicals, and that therefore the request sought irrelevant information. In further response, Devon provided a privilege log that listed a document described as a summary of all communications with local residents concerning odors that emanated from the plant. As a basis for refusing to disclose the document, Devon claimed the summary was protected from disclosure under the work product doctrine because it had been created by its counsel, who therein described the underlying facts of the residents' comments as well as counsel's thoughts about them. Pat filed a motion to compel Devon's production of the documents she requested. The court denied Pat's motion. In October 2012, while the lawsuit was still pending, Pat learned from a scientific report in a newspaper that the chemicals Devon released cause lung cancer. In November 2012 , Pat amended her complaint to add a cause of action for strict liability and sought to require Devon to pay for preventive medical monitoring of her lungs. Devon moved to dismiss Pat's strict liability cause of action on the basis that the applicable three-year statute of limitations had run. 1. Did the court correctly deny Pat's motion to compel? Discuss. 2. How should the court rule on Devon's motion to dismiss? Discuss.

Question 5 - February, 2013

Bank was robbed at 1 p.m. by a man who brandished a shotgun and spoke with a distinctive accent. The teller gave the robber packets of marked currency, which the robber put into a briefcase. At 3:30 p.m., the police received a telephone call from an anonymous caller who described a man standing at a particular comer in the downtown business district and said the man was carrying a sawed-off shotgun in a briefcase. Within minutes, a police officer who had been informed about the robbery and the telephone call observed Dave holding a briefcase at that location. Dave fit the description given by the anonymous caller. The officer approached Dave with his service revolver drawn but pointed at the ground. He explained the reason for his approach, handcuffed Dave, and opened the briefcase. The briefcase contained only the marked currency taken in the bank robbery. The officer said to Dave: "I know you're the one who robbed the bank. Where's the shotgun?" Dave then pointed to a nearby trash container in which he had concealed the shotgun, saying: "I knew all along that I'd be caught." Dave was charged with robbery. He has chosen not to testify at trial. He has, however, moved to be allowed to read aloud a newspaper article, to be selected by the judge , without being sworn as a witness or subjected to cross-examination, in order to demonstrate that he has no accent. He has also moved to exclude from evidence the money found in the briefcase, his statement to the officer, and the shotgun. How should the court rule on Dave's motions regarding the following items, and on what theory or theories should it rest: 1. Dave's reading aloud of a newspaper article? Discuss. 2. The currency? Discuss. 3. Dave's statement to the officer? Discuss. 4. The shotgun? Discuss.

Question 1 - February, 2004

Patty is in the business of transporting human organs for transplant in City. She is paid only upon timely delivery of a viable organ; the delay of an hour can make an organ nonviable. David transports gasoline over long distances in a tank truck. Recently, he was hauling gasoline through City. As David was crossing a bridge in City, his truck skidded on an oily patch and became wedged across the roadway, blocking all traffic in both directions for two hours. Patty was delivering a kidney and was on the bridge several cars behind David when the accident occurred. The traffic jam caused Patty to be two hours late in making her delivery and made the kidney nonviable. Consequently, she was not paid the $1,000 fee she would otherwise have received. Patty contacted Art, a lawyer, and told him that she wanted to sue David for the loss of her fee. "There isn't a lot of money involved," she said, "but I want to teach David a lesson. David can't possibly afford the legal fees to defend this case, so maybe we can put him out of business." Art agreed and, concluding that he could not prove negligence against David, decided that the only plausible claim would be one based on strict liability for ultrahazardous activity . Art filed a suit based on that theory against David on behalf of Patty, seeking recovery of damages to cover the $1,000 fee Patty lost. The facts recited in the first three paragraphs above appeared on the face of the complaint. David filed a motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and that, in any event, the damages alleged were not recoverable. It entered judgment in David's favor. David then filed suit against Patty and Art for malicious prosecution. 1. Did the court correctly grant David's motion to dismiss on the grounds stated? Discuss. 2. What is the likely outcome of David's suit for malicious prosecution against Patty and Art? Discuss.

Question 1 - July, 2009

Dave is domiciled and owns a house in California on the state line adjacent to Petra’s house in Nevada. Petra is domiciled in Nevada. Dave installed a large rainwater tank near the property line, which leaked. One day, the water tank fell over onto Petra’s property, landing on her retaining wall, which buckled. Petra sued Dave for negligence in federal court seeking $100,000 to replace the retaining wall, claiming it failed because the water tank, weakened by leaks, landed on it. At the jury trial, Petra testified that she had complained to Dave several times over the prior decade that the water tank leaked and that he had done nothing. She also testified that the retaining wall was only a couple of years old. Petra then called Walt, a water tank repairman, who testified that when he repaired Dave’s water tank after it fell over, Dave instructed him to caulk all the joints so that it wouldn’t leak. Petra rested her case. Dave called Gwen, Petra’s gardener, who testified that she had met with Petra the day before the water tank fell and, while they inspected the retaining wall at issue, she saw it was old and had structural cracks that could cause it to fail, pointed this out to Petra, and told her that it would cost at least $100,000 to replace it. Gwen testified that Petra had replied, “You’re right. It’s at least 30 years old.” The jury returned a verdict in favor of Petra and awarded her $20,000 in damages. Dave filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which was denied. Dave properly appealed the verdict. Assume all appropriate objections and motions were timely made. 1. Should the court have admitted: A. Petra’s testimony about her complaints to Dave about the leaks? Discuss. B. Walt’s testimony that Dave instructed him to caulk all the joints so that the water tank wouldn’t leak? Discuss. C. Gwen’s testimony i) That the retaining wall was old? Discuss. ii) That the retaining wall had structural cracks that could cause it to fail and that it would cost $100,000 to replace it? Discuss. D. Gwen’s testimony about Petra’s reply, “You’re right. It’s at least 30 years old. Discuss. 2. Did the court properly deny Dave’s motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction? Discuss. Answer all questions according to federal law.

Question 4 - February, 2019

Bigcorp is incorporated and headquartered in State B. While in State B, Paul, a citizen of State A, was severely injured by a defective power saw he had purchased at a store owned by Bigcorp in State B. Paul brought a products liability action for $100,000 against Bigcorp in a federal district court in State B, based on diversity of citizenship. As discovery proceeded, Bigcorp disclosed that, although it manufactures its own power saws, the particular power saw that allegedly injured Paul had been manufactured in State A by Amcorp, which is incorporated and headquartered in State A. Amcorp and Bigcorp generally conduct business solely in their respective states, but sell surplus goods to each other twice a year. Paul sought leave to amend his federal court complaint to name Amcorp as a defendant. Bigcorp opposed the motion, claiming that such a joinder would defeat diversity, and moved for the dismissal of the action because of the impossibility of proper joinder of Amcorp. The federal court dismissed Paul's complaint. Paul then filed suit against Bigcorp and Amcorp in state court in State B. Amcorp filed a motion to quash service of summons contesting personal jurisdiction over it. The State B court determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Amcorp and dismissed it from the action. Paul voluntarily dismissed his action against Bigcorp without prejudice. Paul then brought his products liability action in state court in State A, naming Amcorp and Bigcorp as defendants. Bigcorp moved for dismissal of Bigcorp from the action on the ground of res judicata, and the State A court granted the motion. 1. Was the federal court correct in dismissing the action on the ground of the impossibility of proper joinder of Amcorp? Discuss. 2. Was the state court in State B correct in dismissing Amcorp from the action on the ground that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Amcorp? Discuss. 3. Was the state court in State A correct in dismissing Bigcorp from the State A action on the ground of res judicata? Discuss.

Question 5 - July, 2000

Paul and Tom, both State X residents, were involved in an auto accident in State X. At the time of the accident, Tom, who was working as a delivery truck driver for Danco, was driving through State X to make a delivery to a customer located in State Y. Danco is incorporated in State Y and has its principal place of business in State Z. State Z is located adjacent to State X. Danco does no business in State X. Paul filed a complaint against Danco in federal district court in State X on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, alleging $70,000 in property and personal injury damages. Danco was properly served with the complaint at its principal place of business. Appearing specially in the State X federal district court, Danco filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the district court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction and that Paul 's action could not proceed without joining Tom. The district court denied Danco's motion. Danco then filed a counterclaim against Paul to recover $20,000 in property damage to the truck Tom was driving at the time of the accident. Paul moved to dismiss Danco's counterclaim on the ground that the district court lacked supplemental jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim. The district court granted Paul's motion. State X law provides that its courts may exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents "on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States." 1. Did the district court rule correctly on Danco's motion to dismiss Paul's complaint? Discuss. 2. Did the district court rule correctly on Paul's motion to dismiss Danco's counterclaim? Discuss.

Question 6 - February, 2004

Paul, a citizen of Mexico, was attending college in San Diego on a student visa. He drove to San Francisco to attend a music festival. While there, he bought and ate a bag of snacks from Valerie, a resident of San Francisco. The snacks had been manufactured in Germany by Meyer Corp., a German company with its sole place of business in Germany. The snacks contained a toxic substance and sickened Paul, who incurred medical expenses in the amount of $50,000. Paul filed an action pro se against Valerie and Meyer Corp. in the Superior Court of California in San Diego. In his complaint , he alleged that Valerie and Meyer Corp. should have known the snacks were contaminated and demanded $50,000 in compensatory damages. Paul drove to San Francisco where he personally handed Valerie a summons and copy of the complaint. He sent a summons and copy of the complaint to Meyer Corp. by ordinary mail to the company in Germany. 1. Did Paul validly serve the summons on: a. Valerie? Discuss. b. Meyer Corp.? Discuss. 2. Does the Superior Court of California in San Diego have personal jurisdiction over: a. Valerie? Discuss. b. Meyer Corp.? Discuss. 3. Does venue properly lie in the Superior Court of California in San Diego? Discuss. 4. Is Paul's action properly removable to federal court? Discuss.

Question 1 - July, 2016

Paul, a resident of State A, had worked as a manager at the only hotel in State A owned and operated by Hotel, Inc. (Hotel), a large national chain . Paul's compensation was $100,000 per year. Hotel was incorporated in State B, where the majority of its hotels are located. Hotel 's main corporate offices are located in State C. Hotel terminated Paul's five-year employment contract when it had two years remaining. Paul immediately found new employment with compensation of $90,000 per year. Paul timely sued Hotel in state court in State B, alleging wrongful termination of his employment contract. In his complaint , he sought reinstatement or, in the alternative, damages of $200,000 for the two years remaining on his employment contract at the time of termination. In State B, the measure of damages for wrongful termination of an employment contract is the amount a plaintiff would have earned absent the termination, less what the plaintiff actually earned during the post-termination contract period. After the complaint was served on Hotel at its main corporate offices in State C, Hotel timely removed the case to federal district court in State B. Paul then filed a motion in federal district court to remand to state court. The federal district court denied the motion. Paul appealed the denial to the federal court of appeals. Paul meanwhile filed a motion in the federal district court for an injunction requiring Hotel to reinstate him to his job . The federal district court granted Paul's motion and issued the injunction. A month and a half later, Hotel appealed the injunction to the federal court of appeals. 1. Did the federal district court correctly deny Paul's motion to remand the case to state court? Discuss. 2. How should the federal court of appeals rule on Paul's appeal? Discuss . 3. How should the federal court of appeals rule on Hotel's appeal? Discuss.

Question 3 - February, 2014

Diane owns a large country estate to which she plans to invite economically disadvantaged children for free summer day camp. In order to provide the children with the opportunity to engage in water sports, Diane started construction to dam a stream on the property to create a pond. Neighbors downstream, who rely on the stream to irrigate their crops and to fill their wells, immediately demanded that Diane stop construction. Diane refused. Six months into the construction, when the dam was almost complete, the neighbors filed an application in state court for a permanent injunction ordering Diane to stop construction and to remove the dam. They asserted causes of action for nuisance and for a taking under the United States Constitution. After a hearing, the state court denied the application on the merits. The neighbors did not appeal the ruling. Thereafter, Paul, one of the neighbors and a plaintiff in the state court case, separately retained Lawyer and filed an application for a permanent injunction against Diane in federal court asserting the same causes of action and requesting the same relief as in the state court case. Personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue were proper. The federal court granted Diane's motion to dismiss Paul's federal court application on the basis of preclusion. Infuriated with the ruling, Paul told Lawyer, "If the court can't give me the relief I am looking for, I will take care of Diane in my own way and that dam, too." Unable to dissuade Paul and after telling him she would report his threatening comments to criminal authorities, Lawyer called 911 and, without identifying herself, told a dispatcher that "someone is on his way to hurt Diane." 1. Was the state court's denial of Diane's neighbors' application for a permanent injunction correct? Discuss. Do not address substantive property or riparian rights. 2. Was the federal court's denial of Paul's application for a permanent injunction correct? Discuss. Do not address substantive property or riparian rights. 3. Did Lawyer commit any ethical violation when she called 911? Discuss. Answer according to both California and ABA authorities.

Question 5 - July, 2009

Doctor performed surgery on Perry 's spine to insert a metal rod designed by Bolton, Inc. (Bolton). Shortly after the surgery, Perry developed severe back pain at the location where the rod was inserted. Within the applicable statute of limitations for a tort action for negligence, Perry sued Doctor in federal district court, alleging that she was negligent in using Bolton's rod for the kind of back condition from which he suffered. Personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and venue were proper. During a deposition, Perry's attorney asked Doctor to state whether she had performed any other spine surgeries using Bolton's rods and, if so, whether any of those surgeries had resulted in complications. Doctor's attorney objected to the questions on the ground that the information requested had nothing to do with whether Doctor was negligent as to Perry, and Doctor refused to answer. After the attorneys properly met and conferred concerning Doctor's refusal, Perry's attorney filed a motion to compel Doctor to answer the questions. Shortly after the statute of limitations had run, Perry learned through a newspaper article that Bolton had been sued by several patients who alleged that they suffered severe back pain after Bolton's rod was inserted into their spines during surgery. Perry immediately sought and obtained leave to amend his federal complaint to join and include a claim against Bolton, alleging that it had negligently designed the rod. Bolton immediately filed a motion to dismiss Perry's claim against it on the ground that the statute of limitations had already run. Perry also learned that Doctor had lost a lawsuit brought by another patient with a back condition like his who had also alleged negligence by Doctor for inserting Bolton 's rod into his spine. Perry filed a motion for summary judgment against Doctor on the basis of preclusion. 1. How should the court rule on Perry's motion to compel Doctor to answer? Discuss. 2. How should the court rule on Bolton's motion to dismiss Perry's claim on the ground that the statute of limitations had run? Discuss. 3. How should the court rule on Perry's motion for summary judgment? Discuss.

Question 2 - July, 2011

In March, while driving her car, Diana struck and injured Phil. In April, Phil filed a complaint against Diana in federal district court properly alleging diversity jurisdiction and seeking damages for negligence for physical injury. In May, Diana filed an answer denying negligence. In June, during discovery, Diana filed a motion asking the court to order (1) a physical examination and (2) a mental examination of Phil. Over Phil's objection, the court ordered him to submit to both examinations. In July, Diana served Phil with a notice to depose Laura , a physician who treated him after the accident. Phil objected on the grounds that (1) Laura could not be deposed because she was not a party, and that (2) deposing her would violate the physician-patient privilege. The court overruled Phil's objections. In September, a few weeks before trial , Phil decided to file a demand for a jury trial. Diana immediately filed a motion to strike the demand. The court granted Diana 's motion. 1. Did the court err in granting Diana's motion to order (a) the physical examination and (b) the mental examination of Phil? Discuss. 2. Did the court err in permitting Diana to depose Laura ? 3. Did the court err in granting Diana's motion to strike Phil 's demand for a jury trial ? Discuss.

Question 3 - February, 2015

Buyer, who was living in New York, and Seller, who was living in California, entered into a valid contract, agreeing to buy and sell a painting claimed to be an original Rothko, supposedly worth $1 million, for that amount. In a separate valid contract, Buyer agreed to buy from Seller a parcel of California real property worth $5 million, for that amount. Buyer and Seller completed the purchase of the painting on June 1; they were to complete the purchase of the real property on June 30. On June 15, Buyer resold the painting, but obtained only $200, because the painting turned out to be a fake. Buyer promptly notified Seller of his intent to sue Seller for damages of $1 million. Seller then informed Buyer that Seller would not go through with the purchase of the real property. Buyer filed suit against Seller in federal court in California. Buyer claimed fraud as to the painting, alleging only that Seller committed “fraud in the supposed value,” and sought $1 million in damages. Buyer also claimed breach of contract as to the real property, and sought specific performance. Buyer demanded trial by jury on all issues. 1. May Buyer join claims for fraud and breach of contract in the same suit against Seller? Discuss. 2. Is Buyer’s allegation sufficient to state a claim for fraud involving the painting? Discuss. 3. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit? Discuss. 4. May the federal court apply California law to decide the breach of contract claim involving the real property? Discuss. 5. On what issues, if any, would Buyer be entitled to a jury trial? Discuss.

Question 4 - July, 2017

Civil Procedure

Study California Bar Exam Essay Subject Community Property

Hank and Wendy are residents of California. Hank is a teacher and Wendy is an accountant. In 2008, Hank and Wendy married. After their wedding, Wendy's mother deeded them a house as joint tenants. They moved into the house and used their earnings to furnish it in a lavish style, including an antique mirror in the entryway. One day, Hank gave the mirror to a friend who had admired it on a visit to the house. In 2012, Wendy purchased a small office building where she established her own accounting practice. She paid for the building with funds saved from her earnings during her marriage and took title in her name alone. In 2013, Hank and Wendy separated. Hank told Wendy that the house was henceforth her separate property and she said, "O.K." After the separation, Wendy's income from the accounting practice tripled and she remodeled the office building with her increased earnings. Without Hank's knowledge, she then sold the building to Bob, who did not know that she was married. In 2014, Wendy initiated dissolution proceedings. 1. What are Wendy's rights, if any, as to the antique mirror? Discuss. 2. What are Hank's and Wendy's rights, if any, as to the following: a) The house? Discuss. b) The accounting practice ? Discuss. c) The office building? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 2 - February, 2014

In 2000, Harry and Wanda, California residents, married. Harry was from a wealthy family and was the beneficiary of a large trust. After their marriage, Harry received income from the trust on a monthly basis, and deposited it into a checking account in his name alone. Harry remained unemployed throughout the marriage. Wanda began working as a travel agent. She deposited her earnings into a savings account in her name alone. In 2003, Harry and Wanda purchased a vacation condo in Hawaii. They took title in both their names, specifying that they were "joint tenants with the right of survivorship." Harry paid the entire purchase price from his checking account, which contained only funds from the trust. Harry and Wanda orally agreed that the condo belonged to Harry. In 2004, Harry purchased a cabin in the California Mountains to use when he went skiing. He paid the entire purchase price of the cabin from his checking account, and took title to the cabin in his name alone. In 2005, Wanda commenced a secret romance with Oscar. During a rendezvous with Oscar, Wanda negligently operated Oscar 's car, causing serious personal injuries to Paul, another driver. In 2006, Wanda received an e-mail advertisement inviting her to invest in stock in a bioengineering company. She discussed the investment with Harry, who thought it was too risky. Wanda nevertheless bought 200 shares of stock, using $20,000 from her savings account to make the purchase. She put the stock in her name alone. In 2007, Harry and Wanda separated. Shortly thereafter, as a result of the car accident, Paul obtained a money judgment against Wanda. Harry and Wanda are now considering dissolving their marriage. The condo and cabin have increased in value. The stock has lost almost all of its value. 1. In the event of a dissolution, how should the court rule on Harry's and Wanda's respective rights and liabilities with regard to: a. The condo in Hawaii? Discuss. b. The cabin in the California Mountains? Discuss. c. The stock in the bioengineering company? Discuss. 2. What property can Paul reach to satisfy his judgment against Wanda? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 6 - July, 2010

In 2007, while married to Hank and residing in California, Wendy inherited $150,000. Wendy used the money to purchase $50,000 worth of Chex Oil stock and a restaurant that cost $100,000. Hank managed the restaurant and, solely through his own efforts, it prospered and is now worth $300,000. In 2008, Hank inherited an unimproved lot in California worth $75,000. Hank and Wendy obtained a construction loan from a bank for the purpose of building a rental house on the lot. In making the loan, the bank relied upon the salaries earned by both Hank and Wendy and, in addition, required that Wendy pledge the Chex Oil stock. A rental house was constructed on the lot. The present market value of the property, as improved, is $500,000. In 2011, Cathy, a customer at the restaurant, tripped and fell over a box carelessly placed in the entryway by Hank. She obtained a judgment against Hank for injuries suffered in the fall. Hank and Wendy have now decided to dissolve their marriage. 1. What are Wendy 's and Hank's respective rights in: a. The Chex Oil stock? Discuss. b. The restaurant? Discuss. c. The rental property? Discuss. 2. To satisfy her judgment, may Cathy reach the community property, Hank's separate property, and/or Wendy's separate property? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 3 - July, 2013

In 2016, while single and living in State X, Hank downloaded a form will and filled it out, stating, “Because I have no children, I leave all my property to Sis.” Hank signed his will in the presence of only two disinterested witnesses. Hank did not realize that a valid will in State X requires three witnesses.&nbsp;&nbsp;In 2017, while still living in State X, Hank married Wendy. After the marriage, Hank kept land he had inherited from his mother titled in his name alone. Hank started working at a construction job, and kept all of the wages he received from the job in a bank account that he opened in his own name. Daughter was born to Hank and Wendy while they lived in State X.&nbsp;&nbsp;State X is not a community property state.&nbsp;&nbsp;In 2021, Hank and Wendy moved to California. Hank suffered a fatal injury on the first day of his new job in California. Hank never wrote any will after the State X will.&nbsp;&nbsp;At the time of Hank’s death, there was $100,000 from his wages in his bank account, and he still owned the land inherited from his mother. In the probate of Hank’s estate in 2021, claims have been made by Sis, Wendy, Daughter, and Son, a ten-year-old child who has proved by DNA testing that he is Hank’s son, although Hank never knew of Son’s existence.&nbsp;&nbsp;1. Is Hank’s will valid? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;2. What rights, if any, do Sis, Wendy, Daughter and Son have in Hank’s estate? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;Answer according to California law.

Question 5 - July, 2021

Husband and Wife married in 1997 in California. Neither of them brought any significant assets to the marriage, and they were both employed. Husband and Wife agreed that Husband should go to law school after they had saved up some money. Husband put his earnings in a savings account in his name alone. Wife deposited her earnings into a joint checking account in both of their names, which was used for their living expenses. Husband had a child support obligation from a previous marriage. Every month, Husband paid his child support by check from the joint checking account. Husband began law school in 1998. Wife continued to work to support the couple. Husband took out a student loan to pay his tuition. Husband graduated in 2001 and obtained his law degree. He passed the bar exam and got a position with a large law firm. In 2004 Husband became a partner in the firm. Husband 's partnership earning s were substantial. He paid off his student loan using these earnings. Although the actual value of Husband 's share of the firm's goodwill was substantially greater, the partnership agreement provided that its value was $3,000 for purposes of valuation as marital property in the event of a dissolution of a partner's marriage. In 2006, Husband and Wife filed for dissolution of marriage. 1. Is the community entitled to reimbursement for (a) The child support? (b) The payments on the student loan? 2. Does the community have an interest in (c) Husband's law degree? (d) The goodwill in Husband 's law firm and, if so, is the community bound by the firm 's valuation? Answer according to California law.

Question 6 - July, 2007

In 2003, while planning their wedding, Harry and Wanda, a California couple, spent weeks discussing how they could each own and control their respective salaries. Sometime before their wedding, they prepared a document in which they stated, "After we marry, Wanda's salary is her property and Harry's salary is his property." At the same time, they prepared a separate document in which they stated, "We agree we do not need legal advice ." They signed and dated each document. They subsequently married. In 2004, Harry used his salary to buy a condominium and took title in his name alone. Harry and Wanda moved into the condominium. In 2005, Harry and Wanda opened a joint savings account at their local bank. Each year thereafter, they each deposited $5,000 from their salaries into the account. In 2015, Harry discovered that Wanda used money from their joint account to buy rental property and take title in her name alone. In 2016, Harry and Wanda permanently separated and Wanda moved out of the condominium . Wanda thereafter required emergency surgery for a medical condition, resulting in a hospital bill of $50,000. Harry later filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. What are Harry's and Wanda's rights and liabilities, if any, regarding: 1. The condominium? Discuss. 2. The joint savings account? Discuss. 3. The rental property? Discuss. 4. The hospital bill? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 5 - July, 2016

Tim and Anna were married for ten years. In 2000, their marriage was legally dissolved. For several months following the dissolution, Tim and Anna attempted to reconcile but ultimately failed to do so. In 2001, after reconciliation attempts failed, Tim executed a valid will leaving "all my property to my best friend, Anna." Later that year, Fred was born to Anna out of wedlock. Tim was Fred's father, but Anna did not inform Tim of Fred's existence. In 2002, Tim and Beth married. Two days before the wedding, Beth executed a prenuptial agreement waiving all rights to Tim's estate. Beth was not represented by counsel when she executed the prenuptial agreement. In 2003, Sarah was born to Tim and Beth. In 2004, Tim died. His estate consists of his share of a $400,000 house owned with Beth as community property, plus $90,000 worth of separate property. Tim's 2001 will has been admitted to probate. Beth, Sarah, Fred and Anna have each claimed shares of Tim's estate. How should the estate be distributed? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 2 - February, 2006

In 1997, Hank and Wanda, both domiciled in Illinois, a non-community property state, began dating regularly. Hank, an attorney, told Wanda that Illinois permits common-law marriage. Hank knew this statement was false, but Wanda reasonably believed him. In 1998, Wanda moved in with Hank and thought she was validly married to him. They used Hank 's earnings to cover living expenses . Wanda deposited all her earnings in a savings account she opened and maintained in her name alone. In February 2000, Hank and Wanda moved to California and became domiciled here. By that time Wanda's account contained $40,000. She used the $40,000 to buy a parcel of land in Illinois and took title in her name alone. Shortly after their arrival in California , Wanda inherited an expensive sculpture . Hank bought a marble pedestal for their apartment and told Wanda it was "so we can display our sculpture." They both frequently referred to the sculpture as "our collector's prize." In March 2000, a woman who claimed Hank was the father of her 6 year-old child filed a paternity suit against Hank in California. In September 2000, the court determined Hank was the child's father and ordered him to pay $800 per month as child support. In January 2002, Wanda discovered that she never has been validly married to Hank. Hank moved out of the apartment he shared with Wanda. Hank has not paid the attorney who defended him in the paternity case. Hank paid the ordered child support for three months from his earnings but has paid nothing since. 1. What are Hank's and Wanda's respective rights in the parcel of land and the sculpture? Discuss. 2. Which of the property set forth in the facts can be reached to satisfy the obligations to pay child support and the attorney's fees? Discuss. Answer according to California law. &nbsp;

Question 6 - July, 2002

In 2006, while Hank and Wendy were married and living in State X, a non-community property state, they purchased a house in State X and a condominium in California with money from Hank’s salary. Hank took title to both the house and the condominium in his name alone. In 2008, Hank executed a will leaving whatever he might own at death to Wendy. As allowed by State X law, only one witness signed the will. In 2016, Hank and Wendy retired and moved to California. Hank conveyed the condominium to himself and to Sid, his son from a prior marriage, as joint tenants with right of survivorship, doing so as a gift to Sid. Hank then put $100,000 he obtained from an inheritance into a valid revocable trust, the income to be paid to him for life, then to Wendy for life, remainder to Sid. In 2017, as a result of a skiing injury, Hank lost all mental capacity and was on the verge of death. In accordance with Hank’s prior wishes, Sid was appointed as Hank’s conservator. Sid prepared a codicil to Hank’s will, giving a one-half interest in the State X house to Hank’s best friend, Bill. Sid signed the codicil as conservator, and had it properly witnessed. In 2018, Hank died. Sid found that Hank owed various creditors more than the value of the State X house and California condominium combined. 1. What rights, if any, do Wendy and Sid have in the California condominium? Discuss. Answer according to California law. 2. What rights, if any, do Wendy and Bill have in the State X house? Discuss. Answer according to California law. 3. Will Hank’s creditors be able to reach the assets in the trust? Discuss.

Question 1 - February, 2019

Wendy and Hal are married and live in California. A year ago, Wendy told Hal that she would not tolerate his drinking any longer. She insisted that he move out of the family home and not return until he completed an alcohol treatment program. He moved out but did not obtain treatment. Last month, Hal went on a drinking spree, started driving, and struck a pedestrian. When Wendy learned of the accident, she told Hal that she wanted a divorce. Hal has consulted Lawyer about defending him in a civil action filed by the pedestrian. He is currently unemployed. His only asset is his interest in the family home, which he and Wendy purchased during their marriage. Lawyer offered to represent Hal if Hal were to give him a promissory note, secured by a lien on the family home, for his fees. Hal immediately accepted. 1. Is Wendy's interest in the family home subject to damages recovered for injuries to the pedestrian? Discuss. Answer according to California law. 2. Is Wendy's interest in the family home subject to payment of Hal's legal fees? Discuss. Answer according to California Law. 3. What, if any, ethical violations has Lawyer committed? Discuss. Answer according to California and ABA authorities.

Question 2 - July, 2012

Wilma, a California resident, was employed as an accountant for many years. She retired in 2010 and received a pension. Wilma received part of the pension as a lump sum and the rest in monthly installments deposited into an account in her name at Main Street Bank. She used the lump sum as a down payment on a townhouse. The title to the townhouse and the mortgage are in Wilma’s name. In 2011, Wilma met Harry, also a California resident, who worked in a local store. Wilma and Harry married in 2012. Harry opened an account at Valley Bank in his name and deposited his salary from the store into the account. Wilma did freelance accounting work and deposited the pay from that work into her Main Street Bank account. During their marriage, Wilma and Harry used funds from Harry’s account to pay the mortgage on the townhouse in which they both lived. They paid all their household expenses from Wilma’s account. Wilma’s pay from her accounting work did not cover all their expenses and her monthly pension installments paid the rest of their expenses. In 2013, Wilma and Harry bought a motorboat using funds from Wilma’s account. Although they would both use the boat, title was taken in Wilma’s name. In 2014, Harry was injured when a driver, Dana, negligently struck him with her car. In 2016, Wilma and Harry permanently separated, and Harry moved out of the townhouse and stopped making mortgage payments. In 2017, Harry settled his claim against Dana for $30,000. In 2018, Harry instituted dissolution proceedings. What are Wilma’s and Harry’s rights and liabilities, if any, with regard to: 1. The townhouse? Discuss. 2. The motorboat? Discuss. 3. The personal injury settlement funds? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 4 - July, 2018

In 2008, Henry and Wendy married in California. Neither had saved any money before marriage. At the time of the marriage, Henry had a monthly child support obligation of $1,000, which was deducted from his salary, for a child from a prior relationship. In 2010, Wendy accepted a job at Company. At that time, she was told that if she performed well, she would receive stock options in the near future. In 2011, Henry inherited $100,000. He used $25,000 to buy a necklace that he gave to Wendy as a holiday present. He used the remaining $75,000 to buy a municipal bond that paid him $300 per month. In 2012, Wendy was granted stock options by Company, which would become exercisable in 2014, in part because she had been a very effective employee. Later in 2012, Wendy was injured in a car accident and made a claim against the person responsible. In 2013, Henry and Wendy permanently separated and Henry moved away. In 2014, Wendy settled her accident claim for $30,000. Later in 2014, Wendy exercised her stock options and earned a profit of $80,000. In 2015, Wendy filed for dissolution. 1. What are Wendy's and Henry 's respective rights regarding: a. The necklace? Discuss. b. The car accident settlement proceeds? Discuss. c. The stock option profits? Discuss. 2. Should Henry be required to reimburse the community for his child support payments and, if so, in what amount? Discuss. Answer according to California law. &nbsp;

Question 4 - July, 2015

Prior to her 1990 marriage to Hal in California, Wendy helped operate an antiques and rare book business owned by her father.&nbsp;&nbsp;During the marriage, Wendy continued to work with her father in operating the business. Over the years, Wendy and her father jointly operated the business and in 1995, they signed an agreement whereby Wendy became the owner of a ½ interest in the business. Wendy had developed an exceptional talent for buying antiques and took over that part of the business in 1995. The business doubled in value from 1995 to 2000. In late 1999, Wendy’s father died and by his will left his interest in the business to Wendy, including all of the business’s real property and inventory.&nbsp;&nbsp;Wendy and Hal separated early in 2014. They have lived separate and apart since then and are now involved in divorce proceedings.&nbsp;&nbsp;How should the court allocate the value of the business between Hal and Wendy? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;Answer according to California law.

Question 3 - February, 2021

Henry and Wynn married in 2000. During the first ten years of their marriage, Henry and Wynn lived in a non-community property state. Henry worked on writing a novel. Wynn worked as a history professor. Wynn kept all her earnings in a separate account. Eventually, Henry gave up on the novel, and he and Wynn moved to California. Wynn then set up an irrevocable trust with the $100,000 she had saved from her earnings during the marriage. She named Sis as trustee and Henry as co-trustee. She directed that one-half the trust income was to be paid to her for life, and that the other one-half was to be paid to Charity, to be spent only for disaster relief, and that, at her death, all remaining assets were to go to Charity. Wynn invested all assets in XYZ stock, which paid substantial dividends, but decreased in value by 10%. Charity spent all the income it received from the trust for administrative expenses, not disaster relief. Later, Sis sold all the XYZ stock and invested the proceeds in a new house, in which she lived rent-free. The house increased in value by 20%. Henry has sued Sis for breach of trust, and has sued Charity for return of the income it spent on administrative costs. 1. What is the likely result of Henry's suit against Sis? Discuss. 2. What is the likely result of Henry's suit against Charity? Discuss. 3. What rights, if any, does Henry have in the trust assets? Discuss.&nbsp; Answer according to California law.

Question 5 - July, 2014

In 1980, Herb married Wanda, and the couple took up residence in a California home, which Herb had purchased in 1979. Herb had bought the home for $50,000 by making a $5,000 down payment and signing a promissory note for the balance. At the time of the marriage, the outstanding balance on this note was $44,000. During the next 20 years, the couple paid off the note by making payments from their combined salaries. The home now has a fair market value of $200,000. In 1985, Wanda sold for $10,000 a watercolor she had painted that year. She and Herb orally agreed that the $10,000 would be her sole and separate property. Wanda invested the $10,000 in a mutual fund in her name alone. The current value of the mutual fund is $45,000. In 1995, Herb and Wanda bought a vacation cabin on the California coast for $75,000. They made a down payment of $25, 000 with community property funds, and both signed a note secured by a deed of trust on the cabin for the balance. Title to the cabin was taken in the names of both Herb and Wanda "as joint tenants." Shortly afterward, Herb inherited a large sum of money from his mother and used $50,000 of his inheritance to pay off the note on the cabin. In 2000, Herb and Wanda added a room to the cabin at a cost of $20,000, which Herb paid out of the funds he had inherited. The current fair market value of the cabin is $150,000. In 2001, Wanda instituted a dissolution proceeding. What are Herb's and Wanda's respective rights to: 1. The home? Discuss. 2. The mutual fund? Discuss. 3. The cabin? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 1 - February, 2001

Harry had premarital savings of $10,000 in a bank account when he married Winona in California in 2015. After the wedding, Harry started working at a new job and deposited his $3,000 salary check into the account. Shortly afterward, he paid $2,000 for rent and $2,000 for living expenses with checks drawn on the account. He then bought $1,000 in Acme stock in his own name with another check drawn on the account. The Acme stock increased in value over time.&nbsp;&nbsp;During the marriage, Winona purchased disability insurance out of her salary. She later became disabled and could no longer work. As a result, she became entitled to monthly disability insurance payments, which will continue until she reaches the age of 65.&nbsp;&nbsp;Thereafter, Harry and Winona decided to live separately, but to go to counseling with the hope of reconciling. After Harry moved out of the family home, he used his earnings to gamble at a local casino, winning a large amount of money with which he opened an investment account in his own name. Harry did not tell Winona about his winnings or investment account because she did not approve of gambling.&nbsp;&nbsp;Subsequently, after a period of counseling, Harry and Winona concluded that they would not reconcile and Harry filed for dissolution. A few days later, Harry took out a loan to pay for a sailboat, hoping that sailing would relieve the stress of the divorce.&nbsp;&nbsp;What are Harry’s and Winona’s rights and liabilities regarding:&nbsp;&nbsp;1. The Acme stock? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Winona’s post-separation disability insurance payments? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;3. The investment account? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;4. The loan for the sailboat? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;Answer according to California law.

Question 2 - February, 2022

Harvey and Fiona, both residents of State X, married in 1995. Harvey abandoned Fiona after two months. Harvey then met Wendy, who was also a State X resident. He told her that he was single, and they married in State X in 1997. They orally agreed that they would live on Harvey's salary and that Wendy's salary would be saved for emergencies. They opened a checking account in both their names, into which Harvey's salary checks were deposited. Wendy opened a savings account in her name alone, into which she deposited her salary. Harvey and Wendy moved to California in 1998. Other than closing out their State X checking account and opening a new checking account in both their names in a California bank, they maintained their original financial arrangement. In February 1999, Harvey inherited $25,000 and deposited the money into a California savings account in his name alone. In 2004, Wendy was struck and injured by an automobile driven by Dan. Harvey and Wendy had no medical insurance. Wendy's medical bills totaled $15,000, which Harvey paid from the savings account containing his inheritance. In 2005, Wendy settled with Dan's insurance carrier for $50,000, which she deposited into the savings account that she still maintained in State X. Very recently, Harvey learned that Fiona had died in 2006. He then told Wendy that he and Fiona had never been divorced. Wendy immediately left Harvey and moved back to State X. The savings account in State X currently contains $100,000. Under the laws of both State X and California, the marriage of Harvey and Wendy was and remained void. 1. What are Harvey's and Wendy 's respective rights in: a) The State X savings account? Discuss. b) The California checking account? Discuss. c) The California savings account? Discuss. 2. Is Harvey entitled to reimbursement for the $15,000 that he paid for Wendy's medical expenses? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 5 - February, 2008

Wanda, a successful accountant, and Hal, an art teacher, who are California residents, married in 2008. After their marriage, Wanda and Hal deposited their earnings into a joint bank account they opened at Main Street Bank from which Wanda managed the couple’s finances. Each month, Wanda also deposited some of her earnings into an individual account she opened in her name at A1 Bank without telling Hal. In 2010, Hal inherited $10,000 and a condo from an uncle. Hal used the $10,000 as a down payment on a $20,000 motorcycle, borrowing the $10,000 balance from Lender who relied on Hal’s good credit. Hal took title to the motorcycle in his name alone. The loan was paid off from the joint bank account during the marriage. At Wanda’s insistence, Hal transferred title to the condo, worth $250,000, into joint tenancy with Wanda to avoid probate. The condo increased in value during the marriage.&nbsp; On Hal’s 40th birthday, Wanda took him to Dealer and bought him a used camper van for $20,000, paid out of their joint bank account, titled in Hal’s name. Hal used the camper van for summer fishing trips with his friends. In 2016, Wanda and Hal permanently separated, and Hal filed for dissolution. Just before the final hearing on the dissolution, Hal happened to discover Wanda’s individual account, which contained $50,000. What are Hal’s and Wanda’s rights and liabilities, if any, regarding: 1. The condo? Discuss. 2. The motorcycle? Discuss. 3. The camper van? Discuss. 4. The A1 Bank account? Discuss. Answer according to California Law.

Question 1 - July, 2017

In 2000, Hal and Wilma, husband and wife, lived in New York, a non-community property state. While living there, Wilma inherited a condominium in New York City and also invested part of her wages in XYZ stock. Wilma held the condominium and the stock in her name alone. In 2001, Hal and Wilma retired and moved to California. In 2002, Wilma executed a valid will leaving the XYZ stock to her cousin, Carl, the condominium to her sister, Sis, and the residue of her estate to Museum. In 2003, Wilma transferred the XYZ stock as a valid gift to herself and to her cousin, Carl, as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. Wilma sold the condominium and placed the proceeds in a bank account in her name alone. In 2004, Wilma, entirely in her own handwriting, wrote, dated, and signed a document "Change to My will," which stated, "I give my XYZ stock to Museum." The document was not signed by any witness. In 2007, Wilma died, survived by Hal, Carl, and Sis. What rights, if any, do Hal, Carl, Sis, and Museum have to the XYZ stock and proceeds from sale of the condominium? Discuss.

Question 6 - July, 2008

Theresa and Henry were married and had one child, Craig. In 1990, Theresa executed a valid will leaving Henry all of her property except for a favorite painting, which she left to her sister, Sis. Theresa believed the painting was worth less than $500. On February 14, 1992, Theresa typed, dated, and signed a note, stating that Henry was to get the painting instead of Sis. Theresa never showed the note to anyone. In 1994, Theresa hand-wrote a codicil to her will, stating: "The note I typed, signed, and dated on 2/14/92 is to become a part of my will." The codicil was properly signed and witnessed. In 1995, Theresa's and Henry's second child, Molly, was born. Shortly thereafter, Henry, unable to cope any longer with fatherhood, left and joined a nearby commune. Henry and Theresa never divorced. In 1999, Theresa fell in love with Larry and, with her separate property, purchased a $200,000 term life insurance policy on her own life and named Larry as the sole beneficiary. In 2000, Theresa died. She was survived by Henry, Craig, Molly, Sis, and Larry. At the time of her death, Theresa 's half of the community property was worth $50,000, and the painting was her separate property. When appraised, the painting turned out to be worth $1 million. What rights, if any, do Henry, Craig, Molly, Sis, and Larry have to: 1. Theresa 's half of the community property? Discuss. 2. The life insurance proceeds? Discuss. 3. The painting? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 1 - July, 2002

Hari and Wanda were married to each other for 20 years, being domiciled in State X (a non-community property state) for the first 15 years, and thereafter, until Hari’s death, being domiciled in California for 5 years.&nbsp;&nbsp;At Hari’s death in 2020, two documents were submitted for probate:&nbsp;&nbsp;1. A formal will signed by Hari and Witness One on June 1, 2018 and signed by Witness Two on June 3, 2018. Both witnesses were disinterested. This document left all of Hari’s community property to Wanda, but did not mention any separate or quasi-community property.&nbsp;&nbsp;2. An undated pre-printed will form that had printing at the top, declaring that it was intended to be a will. On the form Hari had written, in his own handwriting, “All of my separate property and 25% of my community property goes to my son, Samir.” Hari signed the will form, but no witnesses signed it, and there was no date on the form.&nbsp;&nbsp;Hari had full mental capacity throughout his life.&nbsp;&nbsp;At his death, Hari’s property consisted of:&nbsp;&nbsp;A. Separate property worth $100,000;&nbsp;&nbsp;B. Community property – Hari’s half being worth $50,000;&nbsp;&nbsp;C. California land worth $100,000, which Hari had bought with his earnings while he and Wanda were still living in State X. In 2017, without Wanda’s written consent, Hari gave this land to himself and his daughter, Deepa, as joint tenants on her birthday.&nbsp;&nbsp;What rights, if any, do Wanda, Samir and Deepa have in Hari’s estate? Discuss.&nbsp;&nbsp;Answer according to California law.

Question 5 - July, 2022

In 2001 Tom, a resident of California, executed a valid typewritten and witnessed will. At that time, Tom was married to Wynn. Tom also had two nephews, Norm, and Matt, who were the children of his deceased sister, Sue. Tom's will made the following dispositions: Article 1: I leave $10,000 to my friend Frank. Article 2: I leave my shares in Beta Corp stock to my friend Frank. Article 3: I leave $80,000 to my sister Sue's issue. Article 4: I leave the residue of my estate to my wife. The $10,000 figure in Article 1 was crossed out and $12,000 was handwritten in Tom's hand above the $10,000 figure. Next to the $12,000 Tom had handwritten, "Okay. 2/15/02." In 2003 Tom and Wynn had a child, Cole. In 2004, Matt died in a car accident. Matt was survived by his children, Lynn and Kim. Tom died in 2005. Tom was survived by Wynn, Cole, Norm, Frank, and his grandnieces, Lynn and Kim. At the time of his death, Tom owned, as separate property, $500,000 in cash. He also had 100 shares of Beta Corp stock, titled in Tom's name, which he had purchased with his earnings while married to Wynn. The Beta stock was valued at $1.00 per share at the time of Tom's death. What rights, if any, do Wynn, Cole, Norm, Frank, and his grandnieces Lynn and Kim have in Tom's estate? Discuss. Answer according to California law. &nbsp;

Question 4 - February, 2007

In 2003, Wendy and Hank were engaged to be married. They discovered that the $10,000 monthly income Wendy derived from a trust fund would terminate upon her marriage or upon her reaching the age of 25, whichever came first. Therefore, they decided to postpone their wedding until Wendy's 25th birthday, in 2006, and instead began to live together. Also in 2003, Wendy and Hank agreed that Wendy would pursue a master 's degree in education and that Hank would quit his job and stay home, taking care of the household chores. Wendy opened a checking account in both of their names, into which she deposited her $10,000 monthly trust income. Wendy used funds in the checking account to pay living expenses for Hank and herself. Wendy also used funds in the checking account to buy a new car. She put title to the car in both of their names. In 2006, Wendy and Hank married. Wendy 's $10,000 monthly trust income terminated. Afterwards, Wendy began teaching at a local college. In 2008, Wendy learned that her compensation was less than that of her male counterparts and made a claim against the college. In 2009, Wendy separated from Hank and filed an action for dissolution of marriage. Shortly afterwards, she settled her claim against the college in return for additional salary in the amount of $10,000 per year for the next three years. Unbeknownst to Wendy, Hank had run up a gambling debt to a casino during their marriage. At the time of their separation, Hank owed the casino $50,000. Upon dissolution of marriage, what are Wendy's and Hank's rights and liabilities with respect to: 1. The car? Discuss. 2. The $30,000 in additional salary under the settlement? Discuss. 3. The $50,000 owed to the casino? Discuss. Answer according to California law.

Question 6 - July, 2011

Community Property

Study California Bar Exam Essay Subject Constitutional Law

Clear City is home to 50 churches, one of which burned down earlier this year. Fire investigators suspected that the cause was a burning candle. Clear City has enacted an ordinance that prohibits burning candles in any church and authorizes the fire marshal to close down any church in which candle burning occurs. The Mayor told the press that Clear City would vigorously enforce the ordinance and that the fire marshal would randomly visit churches during their Sunday services to close down violators. The fire marshal visited six churches last Sunday, but did not visit the Clear City Spiritual Church (“SC”). Two of the six churches visited were burning candles, but were only issued warnings, not shut down. Immediately after visiting the last of the six churches, the fire marshal publicly announced that it was likely no further warnings would be issued to churches caught violating the ordinance. The fire marshal also announced that, due to a lack of personnel, these random visits would not resume for “at least eight weeks.” The members of SC burn candles during Sunday services to signify spiritual light in the world. The day after the fire marshal’s announcements, SC gave notice to Clear City’s attorney that it would immediately sue Clear City in federal court seeking: (1) a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to enjoin Clear City from enforcing the ordinance during the pendency of the lawsuit; and (2) a declaration that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. Clear City’s defense is that it has not taken any action and there is no controversy. 1. What is the likelihood of SC’s success in obtaining a temporary restraining order? Discuss. 2. What is the likelihood of SC’s success in obtaining a preliminary injunction? Discuss. 3. What is the likelihood of SC’s success in obtaining declaratory relief in its favor? &nbsp;

Question 2 - July, 2019

Five years ago, State X bought Railroad (RR), which was in bankruptcy and about to be liquidated. RR has always been the largest rail carrier in State X, presently carrying 70% of its rail freight. RR’s transport rates are generally lower than other rail carriers. In signing the Act authorizing the purchase of RR, the governor stated that it would ensure continued freight rail service for State X industry. The Act authorizing the purchase of RR provides that manufacturers with factories in State X shall have first choice of space on RR. Peter, a citizen of State Y, which borders State X, grows melons in State Y for sale to grocers there and in State X. Before its purchase by State X, Peter exclusively used RR for shipping melons to his many State X customers. Peter has lost nearly all of his State X customers over the last 5 years because he cannot guarantee timely delivery of ripe melons because shipping space on RR is so uncertain. Corporation manufactures refrigerators in State Y and sells them there and in other states, including State X. Corporation has lost retail customers in State X because it can no longer guarantee dates of delivery when using RR. Peter and Corporation have repeatedly been forced to give up reserved space on RR because it is being used by State X manufacturers. They have now filed suit in Federal Court in State X. 1. What claims can Peter make under the United States Constitution and how should the court rule? Discuss. 2. What claims can Corporation make under the United States Constitution and how should the court rule? Discuss.

Analytics

Support

Company

Legal