LEGAL MIDTERM EXAM

B) A published decision from a Hudson New Jersey trial court : .

C) A 2018 law review article in the Rutgers Law Journal: .

D)A decision from a federal district court in New Jersey .

E) A published decision from the New York Supreme Court: .

F) A Dissenting opinion from the New Jersey Supreme Court: .

G) A published decision from the Minnesota appellate court: .

H) A Concurring opinion from the New Jersey Supreme Court: .

I) A published decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division: .

J) A 2018 article authored by a retired New Jersey Supreme Court Justice and published in the

New Jersey Law Journal: .

EXAM PART 2: (20 Points)

( BRIEFING A CASE )

II) Please read the case (previously provide) of Van Brunt v. Van Brunt and prepare a concise case brief addressing the following 6 points :

1) Identify the Holding:

2) Identify the Issues:

3) Identify the Rule(s) that is/are the subject of the decision :

4) Identify the Key Relevant Facts:

5) Identify the Disposition of the Case:

6) Identify in Logical Detail the Reasons and Policies Behind the Decision:

EXAM PART 3: 20 Points

( BRIEFING A STATUTE )

Please read the following excerpt from the accompanying following New Jersey landlord tenant statute regarding security deposits, and then answer the 3 questions which follow thereafter:

N.J.S.A 46:8-21.2. Limitation on amount of deposit: An owner or lessee may not require more than a sum equal to 1 1/2 times 1 month's rental according to the terms of contract, lease, or agreement as a security for the use or rental of real property used for dwelling purposes. Whenever an owner or lessee collects from a tenant an additional amount of security deposit, the amount collected annually as additional security shall not be greater than 10 percent of the current security deposit.

.

1) Set forth the Implicit Purpose of (Policy behind) enactment of this Statute?

2) To which persons does the statute apply (i.e, what is the “scope” of the statute”)

3) What are the requirements of the statute?

EXAM PART 4: (20 Points)

Your Hypothetical Case: James Smith v. Nancy Davis

James and Nancy met online and began dating. James is 40 years old with substantial savings. Nancy is 22 years old with no savings and substantial student loans. On December 1, 2018, while eating and drinking a bottle of wine at a restaurant and celebrating their one month dating anniversary, James asks Nancy what she wants for Christmas, and Nancy asks for James to pay off her $50,000 student loan. James first thinks that Nancy is joking, but then concludes that she is serious. James states that what he is willing to do is give Nancy a $50,000 interest free loan which she will repay either in three years or, if the relationship ends, within 30 days thereafter. Nancy agrees and the parties sign a handwritten agreement to this effect on the back of a paper placemat. The following week, James pays off Nancy’s $50,000 student loan.

Two months later on Valentine’s Day, following an argument over a text message sent by Nancy to her ex-boyfriend earlier that day, the parties break up. James asks for Nancy to immediately repay the $50,000 and Nancy refuses. James brings a lawsuit against Nancy for $50,000.

You work as a clerk in the court and are asked to set forth a memorandum addressing the following:

A) What are the legal issues which each James may potentially raise as part of his case.

B) What are the legal issues which Nancy may potentially raise as part of her defense

C) You discover a relatively new case issued by the Appellate Division in the matter of Zhang v. Minuskin, dated December 12, 2019, (provided). After reading the case, please answer the following 2 questions:

C1) Set forth in detail a logical and analytical argument as to why Zhang is analogous to your case.

C2) Set forth in detail a logical and detailed argument as to why Zhang is distinguishable from your case.

EXAM PART 5 (20 points)

YOUR HYPOTHETICAL CASE: Mary Johnson vs. Craig Johnson

John and Mary marry in 2012. In January , 2018, John files for divorce over Mary’s objection. Six months into the divorce proceedings, they decide they want to try and reconcile with marriage counseling, and so the court grants John’s request to dismiss the divorce complaint.The parties live separately but engage in counseling for one year thereafter. On the way home from the last counseling appointment, John stops at a 7-11 store and buys a Big Gulp and a lottery ticket. The next day he learns that he has won one million dollars in the lottery. The day after that he files an application to reinstate his prior complaint retroactive to the date of the prior dismissal. Mary objects to reinstating the old complaint and opposed to John filing a new complaint, claiming that John is seeking to avoid sharing the lottery winnings by essentially backdating the divorce complaint to before he won the lottery.

John, however finds a cites the recent case of Schmidt v. Schmidt (previously provided), which allows courts to reinstate previously dismissed divorce complaints under certain conditions.

You work in the court as a law clerk, and are asked to write a detailed l memo addressing the following 3 questions:

A) Set forth in detail how John can argue that Schmidt is analogous to this case?

B) Set forth in detail how Mary can distinguish Schmidt from the present case?

C) Based upon analogies and distinctions of Schmidt, how would you rule in this case (and explain why)

1