[Wills]
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.
Steve agreed to convey his condominium to Betty for $200,000 in a written contract signed by both parties. During negotiations, Steve told Betty that, although there was no deeded parking along with the unit, he was allowed to park his car on an adjacent lot for $50 a month. Steve stated that he had no reason to believe that Betty would not be able to continue that arrangement. Parking was important to Betty because the condominium was located in a congested urban area.
On June 1, the conveyance took place: Betty paid Steve $200,000, Steve deeded the condominium to Betty, and Betty moved. She immediately had the entire unit painted, replaced some windows, and added a deck. The improvements cost $20,000 in all. She also spent $2,000 to remove the only bathtub in the condominium and to replace it with a shower, leaving the condominium with two showers and no bathtub.
On August 1, Betty discovered that the owner of the adjacent parking lot was about to construct an office building on it and was going to discontinue renting parking spaces. She also learned that Steve had known about these plans before the sale. She quickly investigated other options and discovered that she could rent parking a block away for $100 a month. At the same time, she also found that, immediately before Steve had bought the condominium, the previous owner had been murdered on the premises. Steve had failed to tell Betty about the incident.
Betty has tried to sell the condominium but has been unable to obtain offers of more than $160,000, partly due to the disclosure of the murder and the lack of a parking space. Betty has sued Steve for fraud.
What is the likely outcome of Betty’s lawsuit and what remedies can she reasonably seek? Discuss.
[Evidence]
Pete sued Donna’s Pizza in federal court.
At trial, in his case-in-chief, Pete testified that, as he was driving his car one day, he entered an intersection with the green light in his favor. He further testified that when he entered the intersection, Erin, an employee of Donna’s Pizza, was driving a company van, ran a red light, and collided with his car. He sustained serious injuries as a result and was taken to the hospital.
Pete then called Nellie, a nurse, who testified that she treated Pete when he was at the hospital. Nellie testified that Pete told her that, during the collision, his head struck the windshield and that he was still in a great deal of pain. Nellie, pursuant to standard hospital procedure, recorded the information on a hospital intake form. Pete moved the hospital intake form into evidence and rested.
During Donna’s Pizza’s case-in-chief, Erin testified that she had the green light and that it was Pete who ran the red light. Donna, the owner of Donna’s Pizza, then testified that Donna’s Pizza was not responsible for the accident. On crossexamination, Donna was asked whether she had ever offered to pay for any of Pete’s medical expenses, and she denied she had. Donna’s Pizza rested.
In rebuttal, Pete testified that, at the accident scene, Erin told him, “I was in a hurry to make a pizza delivery and that is why I ran the red light.” Pete also testified that Donna visited him in the hospital and told him that Donna’s Pizza would take care of all of his medical expenses. Pete testified that Donna’s Pizza, however, never paid for any of his medical expenses.
Assume all appropriate objections and motions to strike were timely made.
Did the court properly admit:
1. The hospital intake form? Discuss.
2. Pete’s testimony about Erin’s statements at the accident scene? Discuss.
3. Pete’s testimony about Donna’s statements at the hospital? Discuss.
Answer according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
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.
Claire met with Len, a personal injury lawyer, in his office and told him that she had burned her legs when she slipped on some caustic cleaning solution spilled on a sidewalk outside Hotel. Len agreed to take her case and they properly executed a retainer agreement. Claire showed Len scars on her legs that she said were caused by the cleaning solution. She also showed him clothes that she said were stained by the cleaning solution. Len took the clothes from her and put them in his office closet for safe keeping.
Len filed a lawsuit in state court against Hotel. Hotel’s lawyer, Hannah, called Len. She told him that this lawsuit was the fourteenth lawsuit that Claire had filed against Hotel, and that she intended to move the court to declare Claire a vexatious litigant. Len and Hannah had been engaged two years ago before they amicably decided to go their separate ways.
Len called Claire and left a message asking her to call him “about an important update in the case.” He also sent her an email with a “read receipt” tag, with the same request. He received a notice that she had read the email, but did not receive any response. Over the next week, he sent her a copy of the same email once each day with the same “read receipt” tag; each day, he received a notice that she had read the email, but did not receive any response. He then sent her a registered letter asking her to contact him, but again, did not receive any response. A week later, he sent her another registered letter stating that he no longer represented her and that he would return her clothing to her.
Claire soon called Len, begging him not to “fire” her, saying she had not responded to him because “I didn’t think calling you back was such a big deal.” He then asked her about “the thirteen prior lawsuits against Hotel.” She replied: “What ‘thirteen prior lawsuits’? Besides, Hotel’s got more money than I do.” He told her that he was sorry, but that he was no longer her lawyer.
The next day, Len went to his office closet to retrieve Claire’s clothes to send them back to her. To his dismay, he realized that he had sent her clothes along with his to be dry-cleaned. He rushed to the dry-cleaner and learned that all of the clothes he had sent had been dry-cleaned and that all of their stains had been removed.
What ethical violations, if any, has Len committed? Discuss.
Answer according to California and ABA authorities.
[Criminal Law] [Criminal Procedure]
Ivan, an informant who had often proven unreliable, told Alan, a detective, that Debbie had offered Ivan $2,000 to find a hit man 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.
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.
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.
[Professional Responsibility] [Evidence]
Claire had been a customer of Home Inc., a home improvement company owned by Don. Dissatisfied with work done for her, she brought an action against Home Inc. and Don in California state court, alleging that they had defrauded her.
Don entered into a valid retainer agreement with Luke, engaging Luke to represent him alone and not Home Inc. in Claire’s action. Luke then interviewed Don, who admitted he had defrauded Claire but added he had never defrauded anyone else, before or since. Luke subsequently interviewed Wendy, Don’s sister. Wendy told Luke Don had admitted to her that he had defrauded Claire. Luke told Wendy that Don had admitted to him too that he had defrauded Claire. Luke drafted a memorandum recounting what Wendy told him and expressing his belief Wendy would be a good witness for Claire.
Shortly before trial, Don fired Luke. Don soon died unexpectedly.
Claire filed a claim against Don’s estate and a claim against Home Inc., alleging as in her action that they had defrauded her. As the final act in closing Don’s estate, the executor settled Claire’s claim against the estate, but not against Home Inc.
At trial against Home Inc., which was now the sole defendant, Claire has attempted to compel Luke to testify about what Wendy told him, but he has refused, claiming the attorney-client privilege. She has also attempted to compel him to produce his memorandum, but he has again refused, claiming both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work-product doctrine.
1. Should the court compel Luke to testify about what Wendy told him? Discuss. Answer according to California law.
2. Should the court compel Luke to produce his memorandum:
a. To the extent it recounts what Wendy told him? Discuss. Answer according to California law.
b. To the extent it expresses his belief that Wendy would be a good witness for Claire? Discuss. Answer according to California law.
3. What ethical violations, if any, has Luke committed? Discuss. Answer according to California and ABA authorities.
[Remedies]
Rick Retailer owns all pieces but the queen of a chess set carved by Anituck, a famous artist who carved 15 chess sets. No one today owns a complete Anituck chess set.
Six existing Anituck queens are owned by collectors. The last one was sold in 1983 for $175,000. The current owners have refused to sell their queens to anyone.
If Rick could exhibit a complete Anituck chess set, he would draw people worldwide who would buy memorabilia with pictures of the full chess set and other products. It is impossible to know exactly how much Rick would make, but a complete Anituck chess set could be worth in excess of $1 million.
Last week, Sam Seller brought to Rick an Anituck queen he found in his attic and asked if it was worth anything. Rick asked what Sam wanted for the queen. Sam asked whether $450 would be fair. Rick replied that $450 would be fair and offered to write a check immediately. Rick and Sam entered into a valid contract. Sam agreed to hand over the queen the next day.
The next day, Sam called Rick and said, “I learned that you defraud people out of expensive antiques all the time and that the queen is worth thousands of dollars. I am going to sell the queen to another collector.”
Rick has sued Sam for specific performance for breach of contract, and has sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction.
What is the likelihood that Rick will obtain:
1. A temporary restraining order? Discuss.
2. A preliminary injunction? Discuss.
3. Specific performance? Discuss.
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.
[Torts]
Concerned about the dangers of texting while driving, the Legislature recently enacted the following section of the Motor Vehicle Code:
No person shall operate a motor vehicle upon a public road while using a mobile telephone to send or receive a text message while such vehicle is in motion. Doug was driving down a busy street while texting on his cell phone.
Doug lost control of his car, slipped off the road, and hit Electric Company’s utility pole. The pole crashed to the ground, and the fallen wires sent sparks flying everywhere. One spark landed on a piece of newspaper, setting the paper on fire. The burning paper blew down the street, landing on the roof of Harry’s house. The house caught fire and burned down.
A technological advance, the Wire Blitz Fuse (WBF), had made it possible to string electrical wires that would not spark if downed. Nevertheless, Electric Company had retained an old wiring system that it and other utility companies had used for years. Electric Company believed that adoption of the WBF system would require a significant increase in electrical rates, and that the WBF system had yet to gain widespread acceptance in the industry. Studies showed that utility companies that replaced their old wiring systems with a WBF system experience vastly increased safety and reliability.
Harry has sued both Doug and Electric Company.
1. What claims may Harry reasonably raise against Doug, what defenses may Doug reasonably assert, and what is the likely outcome? Discuss.
2. What claims may Harry reasonably raise against Electric Company, what defenses may Electric Company reasonably assert, and what is the likely outcome? Discuss.
3. If Harry prevails against Doug and Electric Company, how should damages be apportioned? Discuss.