CEMENT FOUR Flashcards
4
A SPOUSE CAN SUE AN EX-SPOUSE FOR ACTIONS INVOLVING CP ASSET LOSS WHEN THEY WERE
DARN
GREEDY
ROTTEN
- DELIBERATE
- GROSSLY NEGLIGENT
- RECKLESS DISAPPATION
- WITHIN THREE YEARS
5
FIVE FACTORS OF DETERMINING VALIDITY OF STATE TAX AFFECTING INTERSTATE COMMERCE
- SUBSTANTIAL NEXUS BETWEEN ACTIVITY TAXED AND TAXING STATE (MORE THAN MINIMUM CONTACTS)
- TAX IS FAIRLY APPORTIONED
- TAX MUST NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST INTERSTATE COMMERCE
- TAX IS FAIRLY APPORTIONED TO THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE FORUM STATE
- NOT PREEMMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
4
PRIORITY OF DISTRIBUTION RECEIPT
- PREFERRED WITH DIVIDEND PREFERENCE
- PREFERRED AND PARTICIPATING
- PREFERRED AND CUMULATIVE
- COMMON STOCK
2
SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE IS PERFORMANCE OF
- THE PRIMARY, NECESSARY TERMS OF THE CONTRACT
- FULFILLING THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF THE CONTRACT
3
VENUE CHANGE - FEDERAL TRANSFER STATUTE - TO CONSIDER TRANSFERING CASE W/IN THE SAME JUDICIAL SYSTEM, THE COURT WILL CONSIDER ALL FACTORS, INCLUDING
- CONVENIENCE OF PARTIES
- FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN CONTRACT
- INTEREST OF JUSTICE
2
DISASSOCIATING PARTNER WILL RETAIN LIAIBLITY FOR ACTS OF PARTNERSHIP UNTIL
- ACTUAL NOTICE OF DISASSOCIATION GIVEN TO CREDITORS OR
- 90 DAYS AFTER FILING NOTICE OF DISASSOCIATION WITH STATE
2
AGENCY AGREEMENTS MAY BE REVOKED BY DEATH OR INCAPACITY OF PRINCIPAL UNLESS PRINCIPAL GIVES
- WRITTEN DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY
- WITH CONSPICUOUS SURVIVAL LANGUAGE
3
AGENTS DUTIES TO PRINCIPAL
- DUTY TO OBEY REASONABLE INSRUCTIONS
- LOYALTY (SELF-DEALING, USURPRING OPP, SECRET PROFITS)
- CARE
2
A GENERAL PARTNER IS PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR ALL OF A LIMITED PARTNER’S
- TORT OBLIGATIONS
- CONTRACT OBLIGATIONS
2
FOR DISTRIBUTION OF PARTNERSHP ASSETS, THESE PARTIES GET FIRST DIBS ON PARTNERSHIP ASSETS AT DISSOLUTIONS
- THIRD PARTY CREDITORS
- INSIDE PARTNERS WHO LOANED PARTNERSHIP MONEY
2
QUASI CP IS STILL TREATED LIKE SP
- AFTER MOVING TO CALIFORNIA
- IT IS ONLY TREATED LIKE CP IF THERE IS AN END TO THE MEC
1
AT DIVORCE - CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION SHARES ARE TREATED LIKE
- SP OR CP BUSINESS
2
WHERE THERE IS NO ELECTION CLAUSE IN A WILL AND W RECEIVES 1/2 CP FROM THE WILL, W CAN ASSERT BOTH
- CP
- AND RIGHTS UNDER THE WILL
1
IF UNMARRIED CO-HABITANTS SUBSEQUENTLY MARRY, THE ASSETS ACQUIRED BEFORE MARRIAGE ARE STILL SUBJECT TO
- CONTRACT LAW
1
ONCE A PERSON DISCOVERS THAT HER MARRIAGE IS NOT VALID
- HER QMP RIGHTS DO NOT ACCRUE
1
FOR OPPOSITE SEX PARTNERS, TO REGISTER UNDER CALIFORNIA’S DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP STATUTE, ONE PARTNER MUST BE
- OVER 62
2
UPON DEATH OF NON-ACQUIRING SPOUSE, HEIRS HAVE NO CLAIM OVER
- SS QCP
- BECAUSE SEPARATION DIDN’T TERMINATE THE ECONOMIC COMMUITY
1
WHERE A SPOUSE DIES AND HAS QCP OR OUT OF STATE CP, THE COURT WILL USE
- THE PROBATE LAW OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE REALTY IS LOCATED
2
WHERE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PURCHASED WITH CP FUNDS AND THERE IS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
- SS GETS HALF
- THIRD PARTY GETS HALF
2
PROPERTY INSURANCE - WHERE CP FUNDS WHERE USED TO PAY PREMIUMS FOR SP
- SP GETS INSURANCE PROCEEDS
- CP GETS REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS PAID
5
FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF CP LAW - THESE THINGS ARE SP
- ARMED FORCES LIFE INSURANCE BENEFITS
- US SAVINGS BONDS (UNLESS FRAUD)
- SOCIAL SECURITY
- RR RETIREMENT (UNLESS SUPPLEMENTAL)
- VA DISABILITY
3
DESPITE THEIR FEDERAL SOURCE, THESE THINGS ARE CP
- MILITARY RETIREMENT
- CIVIL/FOREIGN SERVICE PENSION
- COPYRIGHTS
2
WATCH OUT FOR ATTORNEY COI CREATED WHERE ATTORNEY
- SERVES ON BOD
- REPRESENTS AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE IN ACTION AGAINST CORPORATION
2
IF AN EQUITY LIEN IS INSUFFICIENT, THE COURT MAY ENTER A
- DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT
- ENFORCING DIFFERENCE AGAINST D’S OTHER PROPERTY
2
IF AN INJUNCTION IS ERRONEOUS, IT STILL MUST BE OBEYED UNTIL
- COURT MODIFIES
- OR DISSOLVES
1
FOR INJUNCTION SEEKING PRIOR RESTRAINT, USE DEFENSE OF
- FREE SPEECH
3
IF A VARIANCE IS BEING APPEALED, DISCUSS
- EQUAL PROTECTION
- DUE PROCESS
- TAKINGS CLAUSE
1
WHERE A PLAINTIFF IS SEEKING RESTITUTION FOR AN UNENFORCEABLE CONTRCT AND THE VALUE OF THE BENEFIT IS GREATER THAN THE CONTRACT PRICE
- SHE CAN RECOVER THE GREATER AMOUNT.
4
WHERE A CONTRACT WAS PARTLY EXECUTORY AND BUYER MADE A LATE PAYMENT AND THEN BRINGS SP CLAIM, EQUITY MAY ORDER SP IF
- PAYMENT WAS FORTHCOMING WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
- SELLER’S LOSS WAS SLIGHT
- FULL COMPENSATION WAS TENDERED FOR THE DELAY OR
- ENFORCING TIME CONDITION IS UNCONSCIONABILE
1
SP WILL LIKELY NOT BE GRANTED FOR
- OUT OF STATE CONTRACT
3
FRAUD IN THE REVOCATION WILL AMOUNT TO
- NO PROBATE
- ESTATE IS PUT IN CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
- HEIRS ARE TRUSTEES FOR PURPOSE OF TRANSFERRING TO INTENDED BENEFICIARIES
1
FRAUD IN THE REVOCATION MAY BE CAUSED BY
- MISREPRESENTATION LEADS TESTATOR TO NOT REVOKE A WILL
4
INTERLINEATIONS MUST STILL SATISFY REQUIREMENTS OF
- ATTESTED OR
- HOLOGRAPHIC WILL
- IF NO FORMALITIES MET AND HIGHER DEVISE WAS GIVEN
- DRR WILL APPLY AND B WILL GET OLD DEVISE
2
WHERE INTERLINEATIONS STRIKE OUT AN OLD DEVISE AND A NEW DEVISE IS MADE FOR LESSER AMOUNT
- MUST MEET TESTAMENTARY FORMALITIES
- DRR WON’T APPLY
2
DRR WHEN SECOND WILL IS INVALID, DRR
- WON’T APPLY
- BECAUSE SECOND WILL WAS NEVER EFFECTIVE TO REVOKE
3
A CONTRACT MAY PREVENT REVOCATION OF A WILL, OR PORTIONS OF THE WILL WHERE THE WILL
- SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIES THE CONTRACT AND IT EXISTS
- MATERIAL PROVISIONS OF CONTRACT ARE IN THE WILL
- CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF AGREEMENT ENFORCEABLE AT EQUITY
1
GIFT LISTS ARE EFFECTIVE WHERE
- EXECUTED AFTER 1987
3
DEVISE OF ASSETS THROUGH INTER VIVOS TRUST IS VALID WHERE
- REFERENCED IN WILL
- INDEPEDENTLY SIGNED
- TRUST WAS VALID BEFORE OR AT TIME OF WILL’S EXECUTION
2
WILL MISTAKE - MISTAKE IN CONTENT
- OMISSION - NO JUDICIAL REMEDY BC COURT WON’T REWRITE
- ADDITION - REMEDY OK, COURT WILL JUST CROSS OUT
2
MISTAKE IN EXECUTION
- NO PROBATE WHERE NO INTENT
- UNLESS RECIPROCAL OR MUTUAL WILL
2
PALSGRAFF - CARDOZO V. ANDREWS DIFFERENCES ON DUTY
- UNDER PALSGRAFF, CARDOZO ARGUED THAT A DUTY IS ONLY OWED TO THOSE IN THE ZONE OF DANGER, WHERE THE DEFENDANT’S ACTS CREATED A FORESEEABLE RISK OF HARM.
- ANDREWS ARGUED THAT IF A DUTY WAS OWED TO ANYONE, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE LIABLE TO ALL THAT WERE ACTUALLY AND PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE BREACH OF THAT DUTY.
4
INTENTIONAL INTERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS
DEFENDANT MESSES WITH PLAINTIFF’S CONTRACTUAL REALTIONSHIP FOR CICS
- CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
- INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PERFORMANCE
- CAUSATION
- SPECIAL DAMAGES
3
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS ADVANTAGE
- INDUCING THIRD PARTY
- OR PREVENTING PLAINTIFF
- FROM DRINKING PBR
2
NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS ADVANTAGE
- NEGLIGENCE CREATED A LOSS OF
- PBR