mpt frequency analysis july-fall 2020smartbarprep.com/smartbarprep_mpt_frequency_analysis.pdf ·...

MPT Frequency Analysis For the Multistate Performance Test (MPT)

July 2021 Edition

© 2021 SmartBarPrep | www.smartbarprep.com

The SmartBarPrep MPT Frequency Analysis (hereinafter “Study Guide”) is designed to assist you in studying for the Multistate Performance Test (MPT) and the Uniform Bar Exam (UBE). It was NOT designed to be a prediction of what will be asked on the upcoming bar exam or any future examinations. Although many of the same tasks and/or assignments (“tasks”) have been repeated on past MPT questions, there is NO GUARANTEE that any future MPT will test the same or similar tasks that have appeared on past exams. SmartBarPrep makes NO WARRANTIES or GUARANTEES as to what legal tasks the National Conference of Bar Examiners and/or state bar examiners will test on the upcoming bar exam or any future examinations.

While we endeavor to provide accurate, complete, and up-to-date information in this Study Guide, the accuracy, completeness, adequacy, or currency of the content is not guaranteed. Your use of any content in this Study Guide or materials linked from our website (www.smartbarprep.com) is at your own risk.

Although SmartBarPrep does feel that using this Study Guide will help you on the MPT, WE MAKE NO GUARANTEE THAT YOU WILL PASS THE UNIFORM BAR EXAM (UBE), MULTISTATE PERFORMANCE TEST (MPT), OR ANY OTHER STATE’S BAR EXAM.

Under no circumstances shall we be liable for any losses or damages whatsoever, including direct, indirect, incidental, and consequential damages, resulting from the use of this Study Guide, whether based on contract, tort, or any other legal theory. This Study Guide and the materials contained herein are provided “as is,” and there are no representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the use of this Study Guide, or its contents. WE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO ITS USE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

The content of this Study Guide is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice, nor is it intended to establish any attorney-client relationship.

Reading beyond this point constitutes your acceptance of the terms above.

DISCLAIMER

We would love to hear from you.

If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions please feel free to email us at any time.

[email protected]

NCBE Trademark Notice UBE®, MBE®, MEE®, MPT®, MPRE®, and NCBE® are trademarks of the National Conference of Bar Examiners.

Smart study tools that simplify and optimize your bar exam prep by helping you learn faster, practice more effectively, and priori-tize the highly tested topics & rules.

1. Prioritize

Color-coded Priority Outlines, Attack Sheets, & Frequency Charts to streamline the mountain of information you need to know for the bar exam.

2. Optimize

Smart flashcards that use cognitive science & adaptive learning to acceler-ate the learning experience. Printable flashcards are also available.

3. Practice

Real questions licensed from the bar ex-aminers along with our smart strategy to practice more effectively for the MBE, MEE, and MPT.

Our Proven 3-Step Method to Study Smarter

S T U D Y S M A R T E RO P T I M I Z E Y O U R B A R P R E P

visit www.SmartBarPrep.com to learn more


Table of Contents

MPT Frequency ChartMPT Frequency ChartMPT Frequency ChartMPT Frequency Chart 1111

Tasks Appearing on Past Multistate Performance Tests (MPT’s)

MPT Frequency TableMPT Frequency TableMPT Frequency TableMPT Frequency Table 2222

Number of Times Task Appeared out of Total Number of MPT's

Analysis of Past MPT AssigAnalysis of Past MPT AssigAnalysis of Past MPT AssigAnalysis of Past MPT Assignmentsnmentsnmentsnments 3333

Breakdown of Tasks / Assignments Appearing on Past Multistate Performance Tests (MPT’s)


1

Tasks Tasks Tasks Tasks AppearingAppearingAppearingAppearing on Paston Paston Paston Past Multistate Multistate Multistate Multistate PerformancePerformancePerformancePerformance Tests (MPT’s)Tests (MPT’s)Tests (MPT’s)Tests (MPT’s)

10

13

26

50

10

2

1

1

3

1

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Persuasive Memorandum

Persuasive/Demand Letter

Persuasive Brief

Objective Memorandum

Opinion Letter

Draft Will

Draft Interrogatories

Draft Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law

Draft Closing Argument

Draft Causes of Action

Draft Agreement/Contract

# of Times Tested

Number of Times Tasks Appeared on Past ExamsNumber of Times Tasks Appeared on Past ExamsNumber of Times Tasks Appeared on Past ExamsNumber of Times Tasks Appeared on Past Exams


2

Number of Times Task AppearedNumber of Times Task AppearedNumber of Times Task AppearedNumber of Times Task Appeared out of Total Number of MPT'sout of Total Number of MPT'sout of Total Number of MPT'sout of Total Number of MPT's

Past MPT Tasks # of Times Tested % out of Total MPT’s

Draft Agreement/Contract 3 2.6%

Draft Causes of Action 1 0.9%

Draft Closing Argument 3 2.6%

Draft Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 1 0.9%

Draft Interrogatories 1 0.9%

Draft Will 2 1.7%

Opinion Letter 10 8.7%

Objective Memorandum 50 43.5%

Persuasive Brief 26 22.6%

Persuasive/Demand Letter 13 11.3%

Persuasive Memorandum 10 8.7%


3

Breakdown of Breakdown of Breakdown of Breakdown of Tasks Tasks Tasks Tasks / / / / AssignmentsAssignmentsAssignmentsAssignments Appearing on PastAppearing on PastAppearing on PastAppearing on Past

Multistate Performance TestsMultistate Performance TestsMultistate Performance TestsMultistate Performance Tests ((((MPT’sMPT’sMPT’sMPT’s))))

Exam MPT Name Task / Assignment

Feb 2021 (MPT-1) In re Mills Objective Memorandum

Feb 2021 (MPT-2) State v. Kilross Persuasive Brief

Oct 2020 (MPT-1) Klein v. State of Franklin Objective Memorandum

Oct 2020 (MPT-2) Franklin Statehood Enabling Act Persuasive Memorandum1

Sept 2020 (MPT-1) State of Franklin v. Daniels Persuasive Brief

Sept 2020 (MPT-2) Eastwood v. Eastwood Opinion Letter2

July 2020 (MPT-1) In re Alice Lindgren Persuasive/Demand Letter3

July 2020 (MPT-2) Fun4Kids Terms of Service Agreement Objective Memorandum

† A small number of MPT’s have tested more than one type of task in the performance test assignment. 1 Persuasive Memorandum that will be used internally to persuade legislators and their legal advisors. 2 Objective Opinion Letter to Client. 3 Persuasive “Cover Letter” to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services in support of the client’s eligibility for a visa.

Total Exams Analyzed 51

Total # of MPT’s 115

Total # Tasks Previously Tested† 120

SmartBarPrep Analysis of Past MPT Assignments


4


Feb 2020 (MPT-1) Downey v. Achilles Medical Device

Company Objective Memorandum

Feb 2020 (MPT-2) In re Eli Doran Draft Closing Argument4

July 2019 (MPT-1) American Electric v. Wuhan Precision

Parts Objective Memorandum

July 2019 (MPT-2) Estate of Carl Rucker Objective Memorandum

Feb 2019 (MPT-1) State of Franklin Dept. of Children &

Families v. Little Tots Child Care Center Persuasive Memorandum

Feb 2019 (MPT-2) In re Remick Objective Memorandum

July 2018 (MPT-1) State of Franklin v. Hale Persuasive Brief

July 2018 (MPT-2) Rugby Owners & Players Association Draft Agreement/Contract5

Feb 2018 (MPT-1) State of Franklin v. Clegane Persuasive Brief

Feb 2018 (MPT-2) In re Hastings Objective Memorandum

July 2017 (MPT-1) Peek et al. v. Doris Stern and Allied

Behavioral Health Services Persuasive Brief

July 2017 (MPT-2) In re Zimmer Farm Objective Memorandum

Feb 2017 (MPT-1) In re Ace Chemical Objective Memorandum

Feb 2017 (MPT-2) In re Guardianship of King Draft Findings of Fact & Conclusions

of Law6

July 2016 (MPT-1) In re Whirley Objective Memorandum

July 2016 (MPT-2) Nash v. Franklin Department of Revenue Persuasive Brief

Feb 2016 (MPT-1) In re Anderson Objective Memorandum

Feb 2016 (MPT-2) Miller v. Trapp Persuasive/Demand Letter + Objective Memorandum7

July 2015 (MPT-1) In re Bryan Carr Opinion Letter8

July 2015 (MPT-2) In re Franklin Aces Opinion Letter9

Feb 2015 (MPT-1) In re Harrison Objective Memorandum

Feb 2015 (MPT-2) In re Community General Hospital Persuasive/Demand Letter10

July 2014 (MPT-1) In re Kay Struckman Objective Memorandum

4 Draft “Written” Closing Argument to the Court (persuasive assignment). 5 Re-draft Articles of Association for Joint Venture + Explain Reasoning. 6 Instructions state to draft assignment in a persuasive way, but without being explicitly argumentative. 7 Two Tasks Assigned: Persuasive Demand Letter + Short Objective Memorandum. 8 Objective Opinion Letter to Client. 9 Objective Opinion Letter to Client. 10 Draft Letter Responding to Purported HIPAA violations.



5


July 2014 (MPT-2) In re Linda Duram Persuasive/Demand Letter11

Feb 2014 (MPT-1) In re Rowan Persuasive Brief

Feb 2014 (MPT-2) In re Peterson Engineering Consultants Objective Memorandum

July 2013 (MPT-1) Monroe v. Franklin Flags Amusement

Park Persuasive Brief

July 2013 (MPT-2) Palindrome Recording Contract Draft Agreement/Contract12

Feb 2013 (MPT-1) In re Wendy Martel Opinion Letter13

Feb 2013 (MPT-2) In re Guardianship of Will Fox Persuasive Brief

July 2012 (MPT-1) State of Franklin v. Soper Objective Memorandum14

July 2012 (MPT-2) Ashton v. Indigo Construction Co. Persuasive Brief

Feb 2012 (MPT-1) Franklin Resale Royalties Legislation Persuasive Memorandum15

Feb 2012 (MPT-2) In re WPE Property Development, Inc. Opinion Letter16

July 2011 (MPT-1) In re Field Hogs, Inc. Objective Memorandum + Draft

Agreement/Contract17

July 2011 (MPT-2) In re Social Networking Inquiry Persuasive Memorandum

Feb 2011 (MPT-1) Butler v. Hill Objective Memorandum + Draft

Closing Argument18

Feb 2011 (MPT-2) In re Magnolia County Objective Memorandum

July 2010 (MPT-1) In re Hammond Persuasive Brief

July 2010 (MPT-2) In re City of Ontario Objective Memorandum

Feb 2010 (MPT-1) State of Franklin v. McLain Persuasive Brief

Feb 2010 (MPT-2) Logan v. Rios Objective Memorandum19

July 2009 (MPT-1) Jackson v. Franklin Sports Gazette, Inc. Objective Memorandum

July 2009 (MPT-2) In re City of Bluewater Persuasive/Demand Letter20

Feb 2009 (MPT-1) Phoenix Corporation v. Biogenesis, Inc. Objective Memorandum

11 Persuasive Demand Letter. 12 Re-draft Provisions of a Rock Band's Recording Contract + Explain Reasoning/Complications. 13 Objective Opinion Letter to Client. 14 Objective Bench Memorandum. 15 Persuasive "Leave-Behind" Document. 16 Objective Opinion Letter to Client. 17 Two Tasks: Draft Objective Memorandum + Re-draft Arbitration Clause. 18 Two Tasks: Draft Objective Memorandum + Persuasive Closing Argument. 19 Early Dispute Resolution (EDR) Statement to EDR Judge. Instructions stated to candidly discuss the strengths & weaknesses of the case. 20 Response to Demand Letter.



6


Feb 2009 (MPT-2) Ronald v. Department of Motor Vehicles Persuasive Memorandum

July 2008 (MPT-1) Bohmer v. Bohmer Objective Memorandum

July 2008 (MPT-2) Williams v. A-1 Automotive Center Objective Memorandum + Draft

Causes of Action21

Feb 2008 (MPT-1) In re Velocity Park Objective Memorandum

Feb 2008 (MPT-2) In re Lisa Peel Objective Memorandum

July 2007 (MPT-1) Acme Resources, Inc. v. Robert Black

Hawk et al. Persuasive Brief

July 2007 (MPT-2) In re Mistover Acres LLC Objective Memorandum

Feb 2007 (MPT-1) In re Tamara Shea Objective Memorandum

Feb 2007 (MPT-2) Glickman v. Phoenix Cycles, Inc. Persuasive/Demand Letter22

July 2006 (MPT-1) Larson Real Estate File Objective Memorandum

July 2006 (MPT-2) Parker v. Essex Productions Persuasive Memorandum

Feb 2006 (MPT-1) Harris v. CBL Objective Memorandum

Feb 2006 (MPT-2) State of Franklin v. Butler Persuasive Brief

July 2005 (MPT-1) In re Clarke Corporation Opinion Letter23

July 2005 (MPT-2) In re Brigham Persuasive/Demand Letter24

Feb 2005 (MPT-1) In re Rose Kingsley Objective Memorandum

Feb 2005 (MPT-2) Reynolds v. Preferred Medical Providers Persuasive/Demand Letter25

Feb 2005 (MPT-3) In re Barnett Objective Memorandum

July 2004 (MPT-1) In re Marian Bonner Persuasive/Demand Letter26

July 2004 (MPT-2) Graham Realty, Inc. v. Brenda Chapin Objective Memorandum27

July 2004 (MPT-3) Wells v. Wells Persuasive Brief

Feb 2004 (MPT-1) State v. Miller Persuasive Brief

Feb 2004 (MPT-2) Rivera v. Baldisari Amusement Parks,

Inc. Objective Memorandum

Feb 2004 (MPT-3) Bennett v. Sands Construction Company Objective Memorandum

21 Two Tasks: Draft Objective Memorandum + Draft Causes of Action for Fraud. 22 Follow-up Demand “Type” Letter to Opposing Counsel Persuasively Setting Forth Basis of Client's Claim and Why No Exceptions Apply. 23 Objective Opinion Letter to Client. 24 Draft Persuasive Letter that will Serve as a Brief in Support of an Application to the Court. 25 Letter to Opposing Counsel Rejecting Demand to Arbitrate. 26 Demand Letter to Opposing Counsel. 27 Case Planning Memo.



7


July 2003 (MPT-1) Vargas v. Monte Persuasive Brief

July 2003 (MPT-2) In re Franklin Forum Objective Memorandum

July 2003 (MPT-3) Meerstein v. EasyGO Airlines Objective Memorandum

Feb 2003 (MPT-1) In re Suarez Persuasive/Demand Letter28

Feb 2003 (MPT-2) In re Cora Ames Objective Memorandum

Feb 2003 (MPT-3) Arden Industries, Inc. v. Freight

Forwarders, Inc. Persuasive Brief

July 2002 (MPT-1) State v. Tweedy Persuasive Memorandum29

July 2002 (MPT-2) In re Al Merton Draft Will30

July 2002 (MPT-3) GVP Non-Disclosure Agreement Opinion Letter31

Feb 2002 (MPT-1) Franklin Construction Company Opinion Letter32

Feb 2002 (MPT-2) In re Madert Persuasive/Demand Letter33

Feb 2002 (MPT-3) Whitford v. Newberry Middle School

District Draft Closing Argument34

July 2001 (MPT-1) State v. White Persuasive Brief35

July 2001 (MPT-2) True Values Television Network, Inc. Objective Memorandum

July 2001 (MPT-3) Petition of Mona St. John Persuasive Brief36

Feb 2001 (MPT-1) State v. Palm Persuasive Brief

Feb 2001 (MPT-2) Steinberg & Son, Inc. v. Wye Objective Memorandum

Feb 2001 (MPT-3) Consumer Protection Division v. Bernhard's Appliances, Inc.

Persuasive Brief

July 2000 (MPT-1) March v. Betts Persuasive/Demand Letter37

July 2000 (MPT-2) Pauling v. Del-Rey Wood Products Co. Draft Interrogatories38

28 Letter to Opposing Counsel Responding to a Demand Letter. 29 Persuasive Office Memorandum + Identify Conflicting or Incomplete Facts that Need to be Further Investigated (persuasive assignment). 30 Draft Will Provisions + Explain Reasoning. 31 Objective Opinion Letter to Client. 32 Objective Opinion Letter to Client. 33 Persuasive Letter to Opposing Counsel. 34 Draft Closing Argument to the Court with a Persuasive & Compelling Presentation. 35 Brief in Support of a Motion to be heard by the Judge in camera. 36 Legal Argument Section of a Petition for Clemency. 37 Persuasive Mediation Statement in “Letter Format.” 38 Draft Interrogatories + Short Explanation of How Each Will Serve Intended Purpose.



8


July 2000 (MPT-3) Franklin Asbestos Handling Regulations Persuasive Memorandum + Objective Memorandum39

Feb 2000 (MPT-1) In re Application Specialists, Inc. Objective Memorandum

Feb 2000 (MPT-2) Proffet v. Dinsdale Instruments, Inc. Persuasive Brief

Feb 2000 (MPT-3) In re Lewis T. Travin Persuasive Memorandum

July 1999 (MPT-1) In re Steven Wallace Objective Memorandum

July 1999 (MPT-2) Kantor v. Bellows Persuasive/Demand Letter40

July 1999 (MPT-3) In re Emily Dunn Draft Will41

Feb 1999 (MPT-1) Meley v. Boundless Vacations, Inc. Objective Memorandum

Feb 1999 (MPT-2) In re Sylvester Parks Persuasive Memorandum

Feb 1999 (MPT-3) In re Marina Martin Objective Memorandum

July 1998 (MPT-1) State v. Robert Baker Objective Memorandum

July 1998 (MPT-2) In re Laser Lens, Inc. Opinion Letter42

Feb 1998 (MPT-1) Piccolo v. Dobbs Persuasive Brief

Feb 1998 (MPT-2) In re Gardenton Board of Education Objective Memorandum

July 1997 (MPT-1) In re Kiddie-Gym Systems, Inc. Opinion Letter43

July 1997 (MPT-2) State v. Devine Persuasive Brief

Feb 1997 (MPT-1) Alexander v. BTI and Bell Persuasive Brief

Feb 1997 (MPT-2) In re Hayworth and Wexler Objective Memorandum

39 Two Tasks: Write a Memo that States the "Best Case" for Non-Preemption of Regulatory Scheme (persuasive) + Discuss if Each Provision can Survive a Preemption Challenge (objective). 40 Demand Letter to Opposing Counsel. 41 Draft Will Provisions + Explain Reasoning. 42 Objective Opinion Letter to Client. 43 Objective Opinion Letter to Client.

Priority Outlines

Color-coded outlines to streamline the mountain of information you need to know for the bar exam. Includes priority ratings, each rule’s frequency, list of exams tested, & model rule statements.

Smart Flashcards

Smart flashcards that use cognitive science & adap-tive learning to accelerate the learning experience. Printable flashcards are also available.

Smart Guides

Guides that simplify and explain how to prepare for the bar exam, with tips, strategies, & step-by-step approaches to maximize your score.

Smart Sheets

Concise breakdowns of the law tested (2-9 pages per subject) – with a color coded priority rating (high/med/low) – to focus on the highly tested MBE & MEE rules.

Frequency Charts

Charts that show the fre-quency of items tested on the MBE, MEE, and MPT sections – so you can see what’s highly tested and prioritize your studying.

Real questions licensed from the bar examiners along with our smart strategy to practice more effectively for the MBE, MEE, and MPT.

Real Practice Questions

OUR STUDY TOOLSO P T I M I Z E Y O U R B A R P R E P

visit www.SmartBarPrep.com to learn more

Essay Priority Outline For the UBE/MEE

July 2021 Edition

© 2021 SmartBarPrep | www.smartbarprep.com 1

AGENCY01

A. Agency Relationships

■ Creation of Agency Relationship

• An agent is a person or entity that acts on behalf of another – the principal. Agency is a fiduciary relationship, and exists if there is: (1) assent (a formal or informal agreement between the principal and the agent); (2) benefit (the agent’s conduct on behalf of the principal primarily benefits the principal); AND (3) control (the principal has the right to control the agent by being able to supervise the agent’s performance – the degree of control does not need to be significant).

• Whether an agency relationship exists depends upon the existence of the required elements above (the characterization of the relationship by the parties is irrelevant). The parties realizing that a principal-agent relationship is formed or the agent receiving compensation is NOT REQUIRED to create an agency relationship. A writing is NOT required to form an agency relationship (even if the transaction the agent enters into requires a writing under the Statute of Frauds).

■ Types of Agency Relationships

• There are three types of agency relationships. A universal agent has broad authority to act on behalf of the principal, and is authorized to perform ALL acts the principal is allowed to perform. A general agent normally has authority to conduct a series of transactions over a period of time for a particular purpose, business, or operation (i.e. a manager of a restaurant). A special agent has limited authority to conduct: (a) a specific act/transaction; OR (b) certain actions over a specified period of time.

■ Termination of Agency Relationship

• An agency relationship terminates and the agent no longer has authority to act if: (a) the principal or the agent manifests to the other that the relationship is terminated; (b) a specified term of the agent’s authority expired; (c) upon operation of law by the death of the principal or agent; OR (d) upon operation of law by the incapacity of the principal or agent (except where a durable power of attorney exists).

5 of 55 Exams

HIGHSept 2020, Essay 5Feb 2009, Essay 1Feb 2006, Essay 2July 2004, Essay 5Feb 1996, Essay 5

MEE TIP The rule for Creation of an Agency Relationship is normally tested along with such topics as authority, undisclosed principal, or employee vs. independent contractor�

MEE TIP The subjects of Agency and Partnerships are normally tested together on essay questions.

2 of 55 Exams

MEDSept 2020, Essay 5Feb 2005, Essay 7

3 of 55 Exams

MEDJuly 2002, Essay 6July 2001, Essay 6July 1996, Essay 2


MEE TIP: When & How to Discuss Relevance

EVIDENCE09

MEE TIP All evidence essay questions must be answered according to the Federal Rules of Evidence.

A. Probative Value

■ Probative Value: Relevancy & Rule 403 Exclusions

• Relevancy: To be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Evidence is relevant if: (1) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; AND (2) the fact is of consequence in determining the action. Relevant evidence is admissible unless another rule or exclusion provides otherwise.

• Rule 403 Exclusions: Under FRE 403, the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of: (a) unfair prejudice; (b) confusing the issues; (c) misleading the jury; (d) undue delay; (e) wasting time; OR (f) being needlessly cumulative. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial when the evidence is (1) unnecessary, AND (2) might cause the jury to improperly sympathize or dislike a party. As an alternative to excluding evidence completely under Rule 403, the court could limit the unfair prejudice to a party by limiting the scope of evidence or examination to specific topics.

If a question asks whether certain evidence is “admissible”, be sure to discuss Relevance. In recent essays, relevancy has been discussed briefly for each item even though relevance wasn’t the primary rule tested. For example, on the July 2018 MEE (Essay 5), Relevance was briefly discussed at the beginning of Point One, Two, Three(a), and Four.

For this type of brief analysis: First, state “Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Then, write one sentence on why the evidence is relevant. Remember to state the rule and analysis very briefly (unless a greater analysis of Relevance and the Rule 403 exclusions is warranted).

B. Policy Exclusions

■ Subsequent Remedial Measures

• Subsequent remedial measures are measures taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur. Under the FRE, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is NOT admissible to prove: (a) negligence; (b) culpable conduct; (c) a defect in a product or design; OR (d) a need for a warning or instruction.

8 of 30 Exams

HIGHFeb 2020, Essay 6July 2018, Essay 5 July 2017, Essay 5Feb 2016, Essay 2July 2014, Essay 5Feb 2013, Essay 7Feb 2012, Essay 1Feb 2010, Essay 7

2 of 30 Exams

HIGHJuly 2020, Essay 1Feb 2012, Essay 1

FRE = Federal Rules of Evidence


FAMILY LAW10

A. Getting Married

■ Marriage Requirements (State of Mind & Procedural)

• A valid marriage requires: (1) consent from both parties; (2) a marriage license; AND (3) that the marriage is solemnized in a ceremony by a judicial officer or church.

• Courts interpret the consent requirement differently. Some courts find consent if the parties participate in a marriage ceremony and sought some benefits of marriage. While other courts find consent only if the parties consented to the obligations of marriage.

■ Common Law Marriage

• A valid common law marriage creates marital rights and obligations identical to a ceremonial marriage. A common law marriage generally requires that the spouses: (1) live together for a specified amount of time; (2) be legally able to marry; (3) have a present agreement that the two parties are married; AND (4) hold themselves out as being married. Once formed, a common law marriage can only be dissolved through divorce or annulment.

• Most states will honor a valid common law marriage established in another state (even if not recognized within the state). However, a court may refuse to honor a common law marriage when the spouses and the marriage have limited contacts to the state where the common law marriage was allegedly established.

■ Bigamous Marriage

• A person CANNOT be married to more than one person at the same time. Thus, a marriage is NOT valid if entered into when one of the parties is still married (i.e. before the dissolution of an earlier marriage).

• However, a bigamous marriage (when a person is married to more than one person at the same time) may be saved under either: (a) the equity doctrine; OR (b) the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA).

1 of 55 Exams

LOWJuly 1997, Essay 4

5 of 55 Exams

HIGHFeb 2017, Essay 3July 2011, Essay 6July 2006, Essay 4July 1999, Essay 4July 1995, Essay 5

3 of 55 Exams

MEDFeb 2017, Essay 3Feb 2006, Essay 4July 1995, Essay 5

UMDA = Uniform Marriage and Divorce ActUPAA = Uniform Premarital Agreement ActPKPA = Parental Kidnapping Prevention ActUCCJEA = Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

Smart Sheets For the UBE (MBE+MEE)

July 2021 Edition


AGENCY 01

A. Agency Relationships

Creation of Agency Relationship

Definition – Agency is a fiduciary relationship, where a

person or entity (the agent) acts on behalf of another

(the principal).

Elements – An agency relationship exists if there is:

1) Assent – a formal or informal agreement;

2) Benefit – the conduct primarily benefits the

principal; AND

3) Control – the principal has the right to control

the agent (control doesn’t need to be

significant).

*The characterization of the relationship by the parties is

irrelevant.

Types of Agency Relationships

− Universal Agent – has broad authority,

authorized for ALL acts the principal can

perform.

− General Agent – has authority to conduct a

series of transactions over a period of time.

− Special Agent – has limited authority either for

a specific act/transaction OR a specified period

of time.

Termination of Agency Relationship

An agency relationship terminates by:

a) A manifestation by either party that the

relationship is terminated;

b) Expiration of a specified term of authority;

c) Death of principal or agent (by operation of law);

OR

d) Incapacity of the principal or agent (by

operation of law) – except if a durable power of

attorney exists.

Death of Principal:

Common Law → agency is terminated regardless of

whether the third-party has notice of principal’s death.

Some States → NOT terminated until the third-party has

notice of the death.

Agency Contracts – Principal can terminate the agent

at any time.

− BUT, principal may be liable for damages if

agent is terminated prior to the expiration of a

contract (unless the agent materially breached

contract).

B. Contractual Liability of Principal & Agent

Actual Authority – A principal is bound to a contract

entered into by its agent if the agent had actual authority.

Two Types – occurs if:

Express Authority → by principal’s explicit directions to

the agent (either orally or in writing).

Implied Authority → either:

a) Action is necessary to carry out the agent’s

express authorized duties;

b) Agent acted similarly in prior dealings with the

principal; OR

c) It’s customary for an agent in that position

(silence/acquiescence can give rise to a

reasonable belief of authority in the future).

An agent has actual authority when acting within their

reasonable understanding of authority, even if the

principal later shows the agent was mistaken.

Apparent Authority – A principal is bound to a contract

entered into by its agent if the agent had apparent

authority.

Apparent Authority exists when:

1) A third-party reasonably believes the agent

has authority to act on behalf of the principal;

AND

2) That belief is traceable from the principal’s

manifestations (principal holds the agent out as

having authority).

A principal holds the agent out as having authority

when he:

a) gives a position or title indicating authority;

b) previously held the agent out and did not

published a revocation; OR

c) cloaked the agent with the appearance of

authority.

*Continues until the principal communicates termination

to third-parties.

Apparent Authority is NOT applicable if:

a) the third-party had knowledge that the agent

did not have actual authority; OR

b) the transaction was not within the ordinary

usages of business.

Unidentified/Partially Disclosed Principal → Apparent

Authority CAN exist.

Undisclosed Principal → Apparent Authority CANNOT

exist.

H

H H

M

M


CORPORATIONS & LLC’S 03

Definitions

BoD = Board of Directors

SH = Shareholder

RMBCA = Revised Model Business Corporation Act

RULLCA = Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company

Act

A. Formation of a Corporation

Formation of a Corporation

Date of Corporate Existence → begins on the date the

Articles of Incorporation are properly filed with the

Secretary of State, unless a delayed effective date is

specified.

− RMBCA → DOES NOT allow an earlier effective

date.

De Jure Corporation = a properly formed corporation.

Articles of Incorporation – are filed to form a

corporation, and MUST contain:

1) corporate name;

2) number of shares the corp. is authorized to

issue;

3) corp.’s address and name of the initial registered

agent; AND

4) name and address of each incorporator.

The Articles of Incorporation control if there is a

conflict with the Bylaws.

Bylaws = rules and regulations adopted by the BoD that

govern the internal operations of a corp.

− RMBCA → bylaws may contain any provision

not inconsistent with the: (a) Articles of

Incorporation; OR (b) law of the jurisdiction.

Amending the Bylaws:

Shareholders → may amend or repeal.

Board of Directors → may amend or repeal UNLESS:

a) Articles of Incorporation exclusively reserve the

power to SH’s; OR

b) The SH’s (in amending a bylaw) expressly

provide that the BoD cannot amend or reinstate

that specific bylaw.

*If a bylaw deals with director nomination procedures,

the BoD retains power to safeguard the voting process,

BUT cannot repeal a shareholder approved bylaw.

Powers of a Corporation – A corp. has the power to do

all things necessary or convenient to carry out its

business and affairs.

− Includes → lawsuits, own/lease real property,

contracts, borrow/loan money, make

investments, involvement with other businesses,

fix compensation/salaries, charitable donations,

pay/engage in lobbying.

B. Formation of a Limited Liability Company

Formation of an LLC

Articles of Organization – An LLC is formed when the:

1) Articles of Organization (a.k.a. Certificate of

Formation) is properly filed with the Secretary of

State; AND

2) LLC has at least one member.

Operating Agreement – Governs: (1) the relations

between the members and LLC; (2) the rights/duties of

managers; (3) activities and affairs of the LLC; and (4)

any means and conditions for amending the Operating

Agreement.

C. Pre-Formation Contract Liability

Liability of Promoter – A promoter acts on behalf of a

corp. that has not yet been formed.

A promoter is personally liable when:

1) he purports to act as or on behalf of a corp.;

AND

2) knows no corp. was formed.

A promoter remains personally liable for a pre-corp.

contract even if the corp. subsequently adopts the

contract.

− BOTH the corp. and the promotor will be liable if

adopted.

A promoter is NOT liable if:

a) there is a subsequent novation; OR

b) the contract explicitly provides that the promoter

has no personal liability.

Liability of Corporation – A corp. is NOT liable on a

contract made by a promoter UNLESS the corp.

expressly or impliedly adopts the contract post-

incorporation.

− Express Adoption = BoD action or reference in

corp.’s formation documents.

− Implied Adoption = Corp. (1) knows / has

reason to know the material terms of the

contract; AND (2) accepts some benefit of the

contract.

M

M

M

M

L

L

L

© 2021 SmartBarPrep www.smartbarprep.com 1

FAMILY LAW 10

Definitions

UMDA = Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act

UPAA = Uniform Premarital Agreement Act

UIFSA = Uniform Interstate Family Support Act

PKPA = Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act

UCCJEA = Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and

Enforcement Act

A. Getting Married

Marriage Requirements – A valid marriage requires:

1) consent from both parties;

2) a marriage license; AND

3) a ceremony (solemnized by a judicial officer or

church).

Consent – Depends on the jurisdiction.

− Some States → if the parties participate in a

ceremony AND sought some benefits of

marriage.

− Other States → if parties consented to the

obligations of marriage.

Common Law Marriage – Requires that the spouses:

1) live together for a specified amount of time;

2) be legally able to marry;

3) have a present agreement that they are married;

AND

4) hold themselves out as being married.

A valid Common Law Marriage creates rights/obligations

identical to a ceremonial marriage.

− Most states will honor a Common Law Marriage

validly obtained in another state.

Bigamous Marriage – A person CANNOT be married to

more than one person at the same time.

− A marriage is NOT valid if entered into when one

of the parties is still married (before the

dissolution of an earlier marriage).

BUT, a marriage may be saved under:

a) Equity Doctrine → creates a strong

presumption that the most recent marriage is

valid (rebuttable if evidence shows first marriage

was not dissolved).

b) UMDA → marriage may be validated upon

removal of impediment (i.e. earlier marriage is

terminated).

B. Premarital Agreements

Enforceability – Premarital agreements are enforceable

unless procured by fraud, duress, or coercion.

Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) –

Agreement must be:

1) in writing; AND

2) signed by both parties.

*No consideration is required.

NOT Enforceable under UPAA if:

a) Involuntarily (fraud, duress, coercion); OR

b) Unconscionable when executed AND before

execution the spouse was: (i) not provided fair

disclosure (of property/financial obligations); (ii)

did not waive disclosure in writing; or (iii) did not

have (or could have) knowledge of such

information.

Involuntarily Factors → Courts consider: (1) presence of

independent legal counsel; (2) length of time between

agreement and wedding; (3) ability to understand the

agreement; and (4) other reasons for proceeding with

the marriage (i.e. pregnancy).

Child Custody & Support – NOT binding on a court,

and any provision that adversely affects a child’s right to

support is unenforceable.

− If an agreement is NOT in the child’s best

interests, a court may order a parent to pay an

amount reasonable or necessary for the child’s

support.

Spousal Support

UPAA → Permitted, but not enforceable if it makes the

spouse eligible for public support (welfare).

− Court may order support to the extent necessary

to avoid eligibility.

Some States → Invalid as against public policy.

Eliminating Fundamental Marital Duties & Allocating

Financial Responsibility – Spouses may agree on any

matter that is not in violation of (a) public policy, or (b)

criminal law.

− May allocate financial responsibilities, but it’s

NOT binding on third-parties.

− Agreements that limit spousal support during

marriage → generally void as against public

policy.

C. Being Married

Married Women’s Property Acts – Women retain full

rights to their property after marriage.

Mutual Support – All states recognize a marital duty of

support between spouses.

− But, the Doctrine of Nonintervention DOES

NOT allow a court to intervene in an ongoing

L

L

L

H

H

H

M

M

L

UBE Smart Flashcards - Screenshots

mpt frequency analysis july-fall 2020smartbarprep.com/smartbarprep_mpt_frequency_analysis.pdf ·...

Documents