2011
[Wills]
In 2004, Tess, a widow, executed a valid will leaving her estate to her children, Abel, Bernice, and Cassie per stirpes.
In 2009, Tess, Abel, and Bernice quarreled and Tess decided to draft a new will. She went to an office supply store, got a preprinted will form, and filled in the following in her own handwriting:
Because my son Abel and daughter Bernice have been unkind to me, I specifically disinherit them. I give and bequeath all my property to University.
Tess signed and dated the form. No one was present when she signed and dated the form and hence no one signed as a witness to her signature. At the time, she was addicted to prescription pain killers and was an alcoholic.
In 2010, Cassie adopted David as her son. Soon thereafter, Cassie died, survived by David.
In 2011, Tess died, leaving an estate worth $1,000,000.
Tess’s 2009 will has been offered for probate.
(1) What arguments can Abel and Bernice reasonably make in objecting to the validity of Tess’s 2009 will? Discuss.
(2) Does David have any claim to a share of Tess’s estate? Discuss.
Answer according to California law.
Out of a sense of patriotism, Charles enlisted in the United States Army. Charles had risen to the rank of Captain.
Shortly after that promotion, after serious reflection, Charles began to rethink his previous religious, philosophical, and political views. He modified the religious preference he listed on his Army records from “Christian” to “Belief in a Superior Principle of Noninterference with Others Who Have Not Harmed You.” Charles concluded that his belief did not prohibit his assignment to duty in Country A, but it did preclude his assignment to duty in Country B.
Federal law requires military personnel to accept any assignment to duty, but when Charles was assigned to duty in Country B, he declined to go, and was charged with refusing to deploy. Since the charges were brought, Charles has frequently criticized American involvement in Country B.
Charles wishes to raise a defense against the refusal to deploy charge based solely on (1) the Free Exercise Clause and (2) the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
What is the likelihood of Charles prevailing? Discuss.
Leo owned three consecutive lots on Main Street. At one end, Lot 1 contained an office building, The Towers, leased to various tenants; in the middle, Lot 2 was a lot posted for use solely by the tenants and guests of the other two lots for parking; at the other end, Lot 3 contained a restaurant, The Grill, operated by Leo. In 2008, Leo leased The Grill to Thelma for 15 years at rent of $1,000 per month under a written lease providing in relevant part: “Tenant shall operate only a restaurant on the premises. Landlord shall not operate a restaurant within 5 miles of the premises during the term of the lease. Tenant and his or her guests shall have the right to use Lot 2 for parking.”
In March 2009, Thelma assigned the lease to The Grill to Andrew after he had reviewed it. The lease did not contain any provision restricting assignment. Although Leo did not express consent to the assignment, he nevertheless accepted monthly rental payments from Andrew.
In April 2010, Leo sold Lot 1 and Lot 2 to Barbara after she had inspected both lots. Barbara immediately recorded the deeds. Leo retained ownership of Lot 3.
In June 2010, Leo informed Andrew that, within a month, he intended to open a restaurant across the street from The Grill. Also in June 2010, Barbara announced plans to close the parking lot on Lot 2 and to construct an office building there. There is no other lot available for parking within three blocks of The Grill.
1. Andrew has filed a lawsuit against Leo, claiming that he breached the provision of the lease stating, “Landlord shall not operate a restaurant within 5 miles of the premises during the term of the lease.” How is the court likely to rule on Andrew’s claim? Discuss.
2. Andrew has filed a lawsuit against Barbara, claiming that she breached the provision of the lease stating, “Tenant and his or her guests shall have the right to use Lot 2 for parking.” How is the court likely to rule on Andrew’s claim? Discuss.
[Torts]
Gayle is 16 years old and attends high school in School District. One day, Gayle’s teacher was relaxing in the teacher’s lounge during the first ten minutes of class time, as he usually did, leaving the students unsupervised. School District had long been aware of the teacher’s practice, but had done nothing about it. That day, in the teacher’s absence, Gayle walked out of class and out of school. She got into her car and drove to the house of an adult friend, Frances. Gayle had promised Frances that, for $10, she would help her move some paintings. Arriving at Frances’ house, Gayle carelessly parked her car several feet from the curb and entered the house. She came out later, carrying paintings to her car. In a patrol vehicle, Paula, a police officer, spotted Gayle’s car. Frances caught sight of the patrol vehicle and told Gayle, “Quick, move your car to the curb.” Gayle jumped into her car just as Paula was walking towards it. Suddenly, without looking, Gayle swung her car toward the curb, hitting and severely injuring Paula. After Paula was transported to a hospital, she was visited by her husband, Harry. Shocked at Paula’s condition, Harry collapsed and suffered a broken arm in the fall.
1. Under what theory or theories, if any, might Paula bring an action for damages against (a) Gayle, (b) Frances, and (c) School District, and how is she likely to fare? Discuss.
2. Under what theory or theories, if any, might Harry bring an action for damages against any defendant, and how is he likely to fare? Discuss.
[Business Associations] [Professional Responsibility]
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. Answer according to California and ABA authorities.
[Remedies] [Evidence]
Green’s Grocery Outlet (“Green’s”) sponsors a lawful weekly lottery. For one dollar, a player picks six numbers. All persons who select the six winning numbers drawn at random share equally in the prize pool. Each week, for the past two years, Andrew has played the same numbers—3, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 23—which represent the birth dates of his children. On June 1, Andrew purchased his weekly lottery ticket. Barney, a clerk employed by Green’s, asked, “The usual numbers, Andrew?” Andrew replied, “Of course.” Barney entered the numbers on the computer that generates the lottery ticket and gave the ticket to Andrew. Without examining the ticket, Andrew placed it in his pocket. Unbeknownst to either Andrew or Barney, Barney had accidentally entered the number “7" on the computer rather than the number “8.” The winning lottery numbers that week were Andrew’s “usual” numbers. Much to his horror, Andrew discovered Barney’s error when he showed his wife the “winning” ticket. Andrew filed suit against Green’s seeking to reform his lottery ticket by changing the “7" to an “8.” Green’s cross-complained seeking rescission.
1. At trial, Green’s objects to Andrew’s testimony about
(a) Barney’s question, (b) Andrew’s answer, and (c) Andrew’s attempt to explain what the phrase “the usual numbers” means. Should the court admit the testimony? Discuss.
Answer according to California law.
2. How should the court rule on each party’s claim for relief? Discuss.
[Criminal Law]
Vicky operates a successful retail computer sales business out of the garage of her house. Vicky told Dan that she intended to go on vacation some days later. Dan subsequently informed Eric of Vicky’s intended vacation and of his plan to take all of her computers while she was away. Eric told Dan that he wanted nothing to do with taking the computers, but that Dan could borrow his pickup truck if Dan needed it to carry the computers away.
While Vicky was scheduled to be away on vacation, Dan borrowed Eric’s pickup truck. Late that night, Dan drove the truck over to Vicky’s house. When he arrived, he went into the garage by pushing a partially open side door all the way open. Vicky, who had returned home early from her vacation, was awakened by noise in her garage, opened the door connecting the garage to the house, and stepped into the garage. When she saw Dan loading computers into the back of the truck, she stepped between Dan and the truck and yelled, “Stop, thief!”
Dan pushed Vicky out of the way, ran to the truck, and drove off. He immediately went to Fred’s house where he told Fred what had happened. In exchange for two of the computers, Fred allowed Dan to hide the truck behind Fred’s house.
What crimes, if any, have Dan, Eric, and/or Fred committed? Discuss.
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.
[Contracts]
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.
[Professional Responsibility]
Austin had been a practicing physician before he became a lawyer. Although he no longer practices medicine, he serves on a local medical association committee that works to further the rights of physicians to be compensated fairly by health insurance providers. The committee develops recommendations, but its members do not personally engage in public advocacy. Austin is a close friend of several of the other physicians on the committee, though as a lawyer he has never represented any of them.
In his law practice, Austin represents BHC Company, a health insurance provider. BHC has been sued in a class action by hundreds of physicians, including some of Austin’s friends, for unreasonable delay, and denial and reduction of reimbursements for medical services. Austin initially advised BHC that he was not confident it had a defense to the lawsuit. After further research, however, Austin discovered that a stated policy of the health care law is the containment of health care costs. He advised BHC that he could plausibly argue that reimbursements to physicians may legally be limited to avoid a dramatic increase in the health insurance premiums of patients. He explained that he would argue for a modification of existing decisional law to allow such a result based on public policy.
When Bertha, counsel for the class of physicians, heard the defense Austin planned to assert in the lawsuit, she wrote him a letter stating that if he presented that defense she would report him to the state bar for engaging in a conflict of interest.
1. What, if any, ethical violations has Austin committed as an attorney? Discuss.
2. What, if any, ethical violations has Bertha committed? Discuss.
Answer according to California law and ABA authorities.
Prior to 1975, Andy owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute. In 1975, Andy by written deed conveyed Blackacre to Beth and Chris “jointly with right of survivorship.” The deed provides: “If Blackacre, or any portion of Blackacre, is transferred to a third party, either individually or jointly, by Beth or Chris, Andy shall have the right to immediately re-enter and repossess Blackacre.”
In 1976, without the knowledge of Chris, Beth conveyed her interest in Blackacre to Frank.
In 1977, Beth and Frank died in a car accident. Frank did not leave a will and his only living relative at the time of his death was his cousin Mona.
In 1978, Chris and Andy learned that Beth had conveyed her interest in Blackacre to Frank. When Mona approached Chris a day later to discuss her interest in Blackacre, Chris told her that he was the sole owner of Blackacre and she had no interest in Blackacre. Chris posted “No Trespassing” signs on Blackacre. He also paid all of the expenses, insurance, and taxes on Blackacre. Andy and Mona have never taken any action against Chris’ possession of Blackacre.
1. What right, title, or interest in Blackacre, if any, did Andy initially convey to Beth, Chris, and himself? Discuss.
2. What right, title, or interest in Blackacre, if any, are held by Andy, Chris, and Mona? Discuss.
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.