WIXLIB

not made in good faith, Petra has met the amount in controversy requirement.However, Petra may not be diverse from BOTH Dave and Kola. Dave’s residency: Tobe diverse from Dave, Petra and Dave must be residents of different states. Residencyis determined by domicile - - where you live with intent to stay indefinitely. Althoughpresent living location is one factor, it may be offset by other factors that suggest thatyour current state is not your “domicile.” In the facts, we are told that (i) Petra is aresident of state W, and (ii) Dave lived in state X (and had a home in state X), andbecause of the contract, was required to relocated [sic] to State W. The issue is,assuming that state X was Dave’s domicile prior to the contract (and we have no factsto suggest otherwise, particularly because he owned a home in state X), did he changehis domicile to state W?Factors in favor of change of domicile: (i) he physically relocated to state W, andpresumably got new living quarters; (ii) he moved all of his belongings to state W,suggesting that he was in it for the long haul; and (iii) this was not a short term project - there are no facts to suggest that when Dave relocated to state W, he would only bethere for a short time period. Although he quit his job after six months due to a contractdispute, this is not evidence that he had not intended to live in state W indefinitely.Factors against change of domicile: Dave retained his house in state X, and he onlyrented it out to someone else. This is strong evidence that Dave still considered stateX his domicile, and even though he was moving out for a long period of time (assuggested by moving all of his belongings), there is no intent to change domicile.Conclusion: Dave is probably a resident of state X, because of lack of intent to changedomicile. Factors that would help, but are not present, are: where is Dave registered tovote, driver’s license, etc. In the absence of more facts suggesting that Dave intendedto live in state W indefinitely and make it his domicile, he should still be considered aresident of state X.Kola’s residency: A corporation is a resident of two states: (i) its state of incorporation,and (ii) its state where its principal place of business is located. Moreover, principalplace of business is defined differently by different courts, and can mean either (i) whereits headquarters are located, or (ii) where its main manufacturing plants are located. Inthe facts, we are told that Kola is incorporated in state Y, and that its principal place ofbusiness is state W. Assuming that by “principal place of business” the facts mean thateither Kola’s HQ or manuf. plants (as the case may be, depending on the jurisdiction)are located in state W, then Kola is a resident of BOTH state Y and W.Mini-conclusion: There is no federal SMJ. In addition, there is no diversity jurisdiction,because of a lack of complete diversity between plaintiff and defendants: Petra is-6-

resident of state W and Kola is a resident of both states Y & W (and, Dave may be aresident of state W, but likely resident of state X). Because the case could not beoriginally brought in federal court, removal was improper, and the court should havegranted the remand request.B. All D’s must agreeIn addition, all defendants must agree to a removal. We have no facts to suggest thatDave consented to the removal. If he didn’t, then removal was improper. If he did, thiselement is satisfied (but, still lose[s] because no jurisdiction). The case should havebeen remanded to state court as per Petra’s timely motion.C. D cannot be resident of forum stateAn additional reason for remand is that the defendant cannot be a resident of the forumstate. Removal is a process to protect defendants against “hostile” foreign state courts.Here, Kola, and possibly Dave (though less likely, see above) are residents of state W.As such, removal of this case to state W federal court, with state W defendant(s), wasimproper. The case should have been remanded to state court as per Petra’s timelymotion.D. Motion must be brought within 30 daysA removal motion must be brought within 30 days of discovering the grounds forremoval. In this case, Kola moved for removal 42 days after being served with thecomplaint. Assuming that Kola knew of the grounds for removal at the time it wasserved, its motion was untimely, and so the court should not have granted removal inthe first place. (If Kola did not immediately know of the grounds, which is unlikely, thenthe original removal may have been timely, but case still should have been remandedbecause of lack of jurisdiction). The case should have been remanded to state court asper Petra’s timely motion.CONCLUSION: The court erred when it denied the remand motion, because (i) nosubject matter jurisdiction, and (ii) proper procedure not followed (all D’s didn’t agree,untimely motion, D’s resident of forum state).ISSUE II: Should the Federal Court of Appeals entertain Petra’s appeal?Typically, the federal court of appeals can only entertain appeals from final judgments - i.e., from a judgment disposing of the matter, whether because of dismissal, grant of-7-

summary judgment, trial verdict, and the like. There are certain exceptions, however:the federal appeals court can hear certain interlocutory (i.e. not final) appeals involvinggrants of TRO’s and preliminary injunctions (and other pretrial remedies, e.g.attachment), collateral issues, as well as issues where the parties or court would beseverely prejudiced - - or the right would no longer exist - - if they had to wait until finaldisposition to bring their appeal. In such an extraordinary case, where the parties or thecourt’s resources would be wasted, the court can use its inherent writ power to force thetrial court to act.This is one such case. A party can attack subject matter jurisdiction at ANY point in theproceedings - - even on appeal for the first time. Likewise, the court can raise SMJ atany point. If, at any point, the court discovers that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, thecase MUST be dismissed. Moreover, this is a good cause to use the extraordinary writpower, because Petra’s entitled to relief is [sic] clear.In this case, it is conceivable that the parties could go through trial, never raising SMJ,and only on appeal the court discovers the issue and dismisses the case. This wouldresult in a tremendous waste of judicial resources, a waste of the party’s resources andtime, and could severely prejudice Petra’s ability to obtain relief, esp. if the proceedingsare lengthy and there is a tremendous delay between now and when the SMJ problemis discovered. As such, the appellate court should entertain the appeal, either throughits ability to award collateral relief, or more likely, through its inherent power to grant awrit of mandate in extraordinary circumstances.-8-

QUESTION 2Olga, a widow, owned Blackacre, a lakeside lot and cottage. On her seventieth birthdayshe had a pleasant reunion with her niece, Nan, and decided to give Blackacre to Nan.Olga had a valid will leaving “to my three children in equal shares all the property I ownat my death.” She did not want her children to know of the gift to Nan while she wasalive, nor did she want to change her will. Olga asked Bruce, a friend, for help in thematter.Bruce furnished Olga with a deed form that by its terms would effect a presentconveyance. Olga completed the form, naming herself as grantor and Nan as grantee,designating Blackacre as the property conveyed, and including an accurate descriptionof Blackacre. Olga signed the deed and Bruce, a notary, acknowledged her signature.Olga then handed the deed to Bruce, and told him, “Hold this deed and record it if Nansurvives me.” Nan knew nothing of this transaction.As time passed Olga saw little of Nan and lost interest in her. One day she called Bruceon the telephone and told him to destroy the deed. However, Bruce did not destroy thedeed. A week later Olga died.Nan learned of the transaction when Bruce sent her the deed, which he had by thenrecorded. Nan was delighted with the gift and is planning to move to Blackacre.Olga never changed her will and it was in effect on the day of her death.Who owns Blackacre? Discuss.-9-

Answer A to Question 2Olga owned Blackacre and had a valid will leaving to her three children “in equal sharesall the property I own at death.” If the terms of the will were to take effect while Olgaowned Blackacre, her three children would share in Blackacre equally. However, shehad a reunion with her niece Nan, and had decided to make a present conveyance ofBlackacre. She drew up a deed with the help of her friend Bruce, gave the deed toBruce, and, without Nan’s knowledge, instructed Bruce to “record it if Nan survives me.”Later, Olga attempted to revoke her alleged gift to Nan by destruction of the deed,however, Bruce did not destroy the deed. When Olga died, Bruce conveyed the deedto Nan. In order to determine who owns Blackacre, the central question to answer iswhether Olga made a valid conveyance to Nan. A second question is whether Olgaappropriately revoke[d] the conveyance to Nan. If Olga is found to have appropriatelyconveyed Blackacre [to] Nan, the three children would not take any share of Blackacreunder the terms of the will. On the other hand, if Olga did not appropriately conveyBlackacre to Nan, the three children would take Blackacre in equal shares, and Nanwould not get anything. A final consideration is whether there was any reliance on Nan’spart that would allow Nan to take Blackacre.Did Olga make a valid conveyance of Blackacre to Nan?In order to find that Olga validly conveyed Blackacre by deed to Nan, three elementsmust be present. First, there must be an intent by the grantor, Olga, to conveyBlackacre to the grantee Nan. Secondly, there must be a valid delivery of the deed toNan. And thirdly, Nan must validly accept the deed and Olga’s conveyance.Did Olga have an intent to convey Blackacre to Nan?In order to possess valid intent, Olga must have intended to convey Blackacre to Nanat the moment she made delivery. It is not enough that Olga possess the requisite intentto convey Blackacre to Nan years before delivery is made. The intent must match themoment of delivery.Here, the facts indicate that Olga intended to “effect a present conveyance.” Thiswording implies that her intent was to convey Blackacre at that precise moment. Olgatherefore had Bruce draw up a deed which complied with deed formalities of descriptionof property, names involved, and Olga’s signature. Olga then handed the deed toBruce, stating, “Hold this deed and record it if Nan survives me.” When Olga handedthe deed to Bruce, the facts state that she intended to transfer Blackacre to Nan at thatprecise moment. However, her conduct does not match the wording of “present-10-

conveyance.” Instead, Olga wanted Bruce to “hold this deed, and record it if Nansurvives me.” This language is indicative that Olga did not want to make a preciselypresent conveyance of Blackacre. Instead, Olga wanted Nan to receive Blackacre uponthe happening of a condition, that Nan survive Olga. Olga manifested the intent thatshould Nan not survive Olga, Nan should not get Blackacre. Olga intended that at thatmoment, Nan was to receive a contingent remainder in Blackacre, and was not intendedto be a present conveyance. Instead, Olga intended to remain holder of the deed toBlackacre, and leave open whether her children should take under her will.This contingent remainder should be distinguished from a fee simple determinable. Afee simple determinable transfers an interest in land; however, should a condition occur,then the land will revert back to the grantor through possibility of reverter. Here, a courtwill most likely find that Olga did not intend to convey any type of defeasible fee, butinstead wanted to convey a contingent remainder.Nan would disagree with the characterization that Olga intended to convey a contingentremainder. Instead, Nan would argue that Olga intended to make a present possessoryconveyance of Blackacre to Nan when she handed the deed to Bruce. However, thelanguage which Olga used, indicating that there was a condition before the deed shouldbe recorded, indicates that there was also a condition before the deed was to becomepossessory in Nan. This characterization will also depend on whether Bruce is an agentfor Nan, or an agent for Olga as shall be discussed later.Olga’s children will argue alternatively that the intent does not match the delivery at all,that Olga’s intent was to make a present possessory transfer of Blackacre, that heractions do not match, and therefore, the whole transaction should be invalidated.However, courts are unwilling to invalidate a transaction simply on technicalities.Instead, courts will try to look at the transferor’s intent in giving effect to a transaction,use that for guidance, but still rely on legal principles, justice, and fairness in coming toa decision. Therefore, most likely, a court will not invalidate Olga’s attempt to conveyBlackacre to Nan, solely because her words do not match her actions. Instead, a courtwill construe her intent reasonably.Did Olga make a valid delivery of the deed to Nan?Conveyance of a deed also requires valid delivery of the deed from the grantor to thegrantee. Such conveyance does not have to be a precise handing of the deed from thegrantor to the grantee. Instead, there can be a constructive conveyance. The grantorcould hand the deed to a third party, who could in turn hold the deed for the grantee.A finding of whether there was a valid delivery in such a situation rests upon which party-11-

the third party is an agent for.In the present case, Olga handed the deed to Bruce, with precise instructions to recordthe deed should Nan survive Olga. It is clear that there was a valid delivery from Olgato Bruce. But the question is whether Bruce is an agent for Nan, or Olga.The facts support the conclusion that Bruce is an agent for Olga. The facts describeBruce as a “friend” of Olga, and a person whom Olga could turn to for help in draftinga deed. Furthermore, Bruce helped Olga draft the deed with a form, and for allpurposes, seems to be on Olga’s side. The facts also indicate that Bruce was to act onbehalf of Olga. Bruce was to convey the deed to Nan, and record the deed, should Nansurvive Olga. T[he]se actions on behalf of Olga and other aid to Olga are indicative ofan agency relationship. A court will most likely find that Bruce is an agent for Olga.The facts do not support a finding that Bruce is an agent for Nan. The facts do not showthat Nan even knew Bruce, and for all purposes, seems to have first heard from Brucewhen Bruce sent her the deed. Because Bruce is not acting on behalf of Nan, but ratheron behalf of Olga, a court w[il]l most likely find that Bruce is Olga’s agent, and not Nan’s.A finding of this sort is significant. If Bruce is an agent for Olga, then when Olga gavethe deed to Bruce, delivery was not yet made. Delivery would happen upon theoccurrence of the specified condition, and Bruce would transfer the deed to Nan, usingthe power which Olga granted to Bruce to act on Olga’s behalf. On the other hand, ifBruce is an agent for Nan, then delivery was complete upon Olga’s delivery to Bruce.All that would remain is for the deed to be accepted.Because a court will most likely find that Bruce is an agent for Olga, a court will alsomost likely not find that there was a valid delivery made to Nan at the moment Olga gavethe deed to Bruce. Instead, a court may find that a valid delivery was made when Bruce,acting as agent for Olga, transferred the deed to Nan, because Olga empowered Bruceto act in her interest.Was there a valid acceptance by Nan?In addition to an intent to deliver by the grantor and a valid delivery by grantor tograntee, there must also be a valid acceptance by the grantee in order for a validconveyance of a deed to take place. As indicated above, Bruce will most likely be foundto be an agent for Olga. Thus Bruce cannot accept on behalf of Nan. If Bruce had beenan agent for Nan, Bruce could accept the deed on behalf of Nan. Instead, the factsindicate that Nan did not even know of anything of the transaction. Nan could notaccept until Bruce sent the letter to Nan.-12-

When Bruce did send the letter to Nan, Nan accepted the transfer. This is indicative asNan “was delighted” and intended to move to Blackacre. Thus, if there was not aneffective revocation of Bruce’s power to transfer the deed to Nan, then the deed shouldbe effective in favor of Nan.Significance of Olga’s revocationThese findings are significant because of the revocation which Olga made. A revocationis valid anytime up to the moment of acceptance. In the present case, there was noteven a valid delivery, let alone a valid acceptance at the moment Olga handed the deedto Bruce. A court MAY find that there was a valid delivery and acceptance when Brucetransferred the deed to Nan, but only if Bruce was st[il]l empowered to transfer the deedto Nan. Nan would argue that Bruce remained empowered to transfer the deed becauseBruce did not use substantially the same instrument and means to revoke her gift as shedid to make it. Generally, such transfers are terminable by any reasonable means.Olga’s children would argue that even if there was not a valid delivery or acceptance,the revocation was effective upon the phone call, that is, was reasonable to revoke heroffer by telephone rather than in writing because Olga and Bruce were friends.A court will probably hold that the revocation was not effective. Although this is ascenario for the transfer of land thus subject to the statute of frauds, a finding that aperson can revoke or reinstate a transfer simply on a whimsical phone call would invitethe danger of too much fraud. If Olga could effectively terminate her transfer by a phonecall, then she could just as easily reinstate her offer. Such ease in a transfer ofsomething as substantial as a transfer of land would invite too much danger of abuseand fraud. Hence, a court will probably hold that Olga’s revocation was invalid.ConclusionA court will most likely hold that Olga had an intent to deliver land to Nan

ESSAY QUESTIONS AND SELECTED ANSWERS FEBRUARY 2003 CALIFORNIA BAR EXAMINATION This publication contains the six essay questions from the February 2003 California Bar Examination and two selected answers to each question. The answers received good grades and were w ritten by applicants who passed the examination.