MEE Rule Statement Memorization

Property - Wills and Future Interests: What is the rule for Residuary Clause?

A residuary clause transfers to the named beneficiary all property and property interests in the testator's estate that were not specifically devised elsewhere, including transferable future interests.

Property - Present Estates and Future Interests: What is the rule for Life Estate and Vested Remainder?

A conveyance or devise to one person for life, and then to another person and that person's heirs, creates a life estate in the first person and a vested remainder in fee simple absolute in the second person.

Property - Present Estates and Future Interests: What is the rule for Fee Simple Determinable?

"A conveyance using durational language such as ""so long as,"" ""while,"" ""during,"" or ""until,"" with automatic termination upon violation of the condition, creates a fee simple determinable in the grantee."

Property - Present Estates and Future Interests: What is the rule for Possibility of Reverter?

When a grantor conveys a fee simple determinable, the grantor retains a possibility of reverter, which automatically becomes possessory if the stated condition is violated.

Property - Rule Against Perpetuities: What is the rule for Possibility of Reverter and RAP?

A possibility of reverter retained by the grantor is not subject to the Rule Against Perpetuities.

Property - Life Estates: What is the rule for Life Tenant Duty to Pay Ordinary Carrying Costs?

A life tenant must pay ordinary expenses necessary to maintain the property, including ordinary property taxes and interest on encumbrances, at least to the extent of income from the property or its reasonable rental value.

Property - Life Estates: What is the rule for Waste?

A life tenant must not commit waste and must preserve the property for the holder of the future interest, subject to ordinary use of the property during the life tenancy.

Property - Easements: What is the rule for Appurtenant Easement?

An appurtenant easement benefits a particular parcel of land and burdens another parcel of land, and it generally runs with ownership of the benefited land unless properly terminated.

Property - Easements: What is the rule for Dominant and Servient Estates?

The dominant estate is the parcel benefited by an easement, and the servient estate is the parcel burdened by the easement.

Property - Implied Easement by Prior Use: What is the core rule?

An implied easement by prior use arises when land formerly under common ownership is severed, and before severance one part of the land was used to benefit another part in a manner that was apparent, continuous, reasonably necessary at severance, and intended to continue after severance.

Property - Implied Easement by Prior Use: What is the rule for Common Ownership?

Common ownership means that the dominant estate and servient estate were once owned by the same person as part of one unified parcel before severance.

Property - Implied Easement by Prior Use: What is the rule for Use Before Severance?

The prior use must have existed before the parcel was severed, while the land was still under common ownership.

Property - Implied Easement by Prior Use: What is the rule for Parcel Severed?

Severance occurs when the common owner divides the unified parcel by conveying part and keeping part, or by conveying different parts to different people.

Property - Implied Easement by Prior Use: What is the rule for Reasonably Necessary?

Reasonably necessary means the prior use was practically important to the normal use and enjoyment of the dominant estate at the time of severance, not strictly necessary, but more than mere convenience.

Property - Implied Easement by Prior Use: What is the rule for Apparent Use?

Apparent use means the prior use was visible or reasonably discoverable by inspection of the property at the time of severance, so a reasonable buyer would be on notice that one part of the land was being used to benefit another part.

Property - Implied Easement by Prior Use: What is the rule for Intent to Continue?

Intent to continue means the circumstances show that, when the original owner split the property, the parties reasonably expected the prior use to continue after severance even though the deed did not expressly say so.

Property - Easement by Necessity: What is the rule for Strict Necessity?

An easement by necessity requires strict necessity at severance, usually because the parcel would otherwise be landlocked; mere convenience or a shorter route is not enough.

Property - Prescriptive Easement: What is the core rule?

A prescriptive easement arises when a person uses another person's land openly, notoriously, continuously, and adversely for the statutory period, thereby acquiring a right to use the land rather than title to the land.

Property - Recording Acts and Easements: What is the rule for Notice Jurisdiction?

In a notice recording jurisdiction, a subsequent purchaser for value takes free of a prior unrecorded interest only if the purchaser had no notice of that interest at the time of purchase.

Property - Recording Acts and Easements: What is the rule for Types of Notice?

Notice includes actual notice, record or constructive notice, and inquiry notice.

Property - Recording Acts and Easements: What is the rule for Inquiry Notice?

Inquiry notice exists when visible facts on the land would cause a reasonable purchaser to investigate further, and the purchaser is charged with whatever a reasonable investigation would reveal.

Property - Recording Acts and Easements: What is the rule for Express Reference by Nonowner?

A grantor cannot create an easement over land the grantor does not own, but a grantor can convey whatever appurtenant easement rights already benefit the dominant estate.

Property - Zoning: What is the rule for Nonconforming Use?

A nonconforming use is a land use that was lawful when it began, but later becomes prohibited under a new zoning ordinance.

Property - Zoning: What is the rule for Protected Nonconforming Use?

A protected nonconforming use is a use that lawfully existed before the zoning change and is allowed to continue after the zoning change even though the current zoning classification prohibits it.

Property - Zoning: What is the rule for Expansion of Nonconforming Use?

Protection for a nonconforming use generally extends only to the use that actually existed when the zoning changed; later expansions, enlargements, or substantial changes are not automatically protected.

Property - Zoning: What is the rule for Plans Are Not Existing Uses?

A future plan or intent to expand a use does not itself create a protected nonconforming use because the doctrine protects actual existing uses, not unexecuted plans. Mortgages, Construction Loans, and Lien Priority

Property - Mortgages: What is the rule for Mortgage and Collateral?

A mortgage is the security instrument that gives the lender a lien or security interest in real property, and the property serves as collateral for repayment of the loan.

Property - Construction Loan Disbursements: What is the rule for Good-Faith Discretionary Condition?

When a construction loan agreement gives the lender discretion to make advances only if, in the lender's good-faith judgment, satisfactory progress is being made, the lender must exercise that discretion in good faith but is not required to make further advances if it honestly determines that the condition has not been satisfied.

Property - Future Advances: What is the rule for Obligatory Advances?

A recorded mortgage has priority over later interests to the extent it secures obligatory advances, because the lender was legally required to make those advances under the original loan obligation.

Property - Future Advances: What is the rule for Optional Advances?

If a mortgage secures optional future advances, a later optional advance may lose priority to an intervening interest if the lender has notice of that intervening interest before making the advance.

Property - Future Advances: What is the rule for Majority Notice Rule?

Under the majority rule for optional future advances, notice means actual notice; a recorded intervening lien alone does not subordinate a later optional advance unless the lender actually knew of the lien before making the advance.

Property - Future Advances: What is the rule for Minority Notice Rule?

Under the minority rule for optional future advances, constructive notice from the recorded intervening lien is enough to subordinate a later optional advance made after the lien was recorded.

Evidence - Hearsay: What is the definition?

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and hearsay is inadmissible unless an exclusion or exception applies.

Evidence - Hearsay: What is the rule for Statement?

A statement for hearsay purposes includes an oral assertion, a written assertion, or nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion.

Evidence - Hearsay: What is the rule for Written Statements?

A written record, text, letter, report, note, or other writing can be hearsay if it contains an out-of-court assertion offered for its truth.

Evidence - Hearsay: What is the rule for Photographs?

A bare photograph is usually not hearsay because it is not an assertion by a person, but words, labels, captions, or assertive conduct captured in or connected to the photograph can be hearsay.

Evidence - Hearsay: What is the rule for Nontruth Purpose?

An out-of-court statement is not hearsay if offered for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted, such as effect on the listener, notice, motive, intent, state of mind, or a verbal act.

Evidence - Hearsay: What is the rule for Effect on Listener?

A statement offered to show its effect on the listener or to explain the listener's later state of mind or conduct is not hearsay because it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

Evidence - Hearsay: What is the rule for Opposing-Party Statement?

A party's own statement is not hearsay when it is offered against that party by an opposing party.

Evidence - Hearsay: What is the rule for Hearsay Within Hearsay?

When an out-of-court statement contains another out-of-court statement, each layer of hearsay must be independently admissible under a hearsay exclusion or exception.

Evidence - Business Records: What is the core rule?

A record of an act, event, condition, opinion, or diagnosis is admissible under the business records exception if it was made at or near the time by someone with knowledge or from information transmitted by someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, made as a regular practice of that activity, and not shown to be untrustworthy.

Evidence - Business Records: What is the rule for Foundation?

The foundation for a business record may be established by the custodian of records, another qualified witness familiar with the recordkeeping system, or a proper certification or affidavit.

Evidence - Business Records: What is the rule for Record Maker Need Not Testify?

The person who personally made the business record does not have to testify if the business-record foundation is established through a records custodian, another qualified witness, or a proper certification.

Evidence - Business Records: What is the rule for Outsider Statements Inside Records?

The business records exception can admit the record itself, but it does not automatically admit statements inside the record made by a person who was not acting under a business duty to report; those embedded statements require their own hearsay exception.

Evidence - Business Records: What is the rule for Certification?

A proper business-record certification states that the record was made at or near the time, by or from information transmitted by someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and made as a regular practice of that activity, with any required advance notice and opportunity to inspect satisfied.

Evidence - Medical Diagnosis or Treatment: What is the core rule?

A statement is admissible under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception if it is made for medical diagnosis or treatment, is reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, and describes medical history, symptoms, pain, sensations, their inception, or their general cause.

Evidence - Medical Diagnosis or Treatment: What is the rule for Cause Versus Fault?

Statements describing the general cause or source of an injury may be admissible when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment, but statements assigning fault or identifying the person responsible are generally inadmissible unless identity is itself medically pertinent.

Evidence - Rule 803 Exceptions: What is the rule for Availability Irrelevant?

For Rule 803 exceptions, including business records, statements for medical diagnosis or treatment, present sense impressions, and excited utterances, the declarant's availability does not matter.

Evidence - Present Sense Impression: What is the core rule?

A present sense impression is a statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or immediately after perceiving it.

Evidence - Excited Utterance: What is the core rule?

An excited utterance is a statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress or excitement caused by that event or condition.

Evidence - Dying Declaration: What is the core rule?

A dying declaration is admissible in a homicide prosecution or civil case if the declarant is unavailable, believed death was imminent when making the statement, and made the statement about the cause or circumstances of the believed impending death.

Evidence - Statement Against Interest: What is the core rule?

A statement against interest is admissible if the declarant is unavailable and the statement was so contrary to the declarant's pecuniary, proprietary, civil, or penal interest that a reasonable person would not have made it unless believing it true.

Evidence - Statement Against Interest: What is the rule for Criminal Exculpatory Use?

A statement against penal interest offered to exculpate a criminal defendant requires corroborating circumstances clearly indicating trustworthiness.

Evidence - Unavailability: What is the definition?

A declarant is unavailable when the declarant cannot testify because of death, illness, privilege, refusal despite court order, lack of memory, or absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance or testimony.

Evidence - Confrontation Clause: What is the core rule?

In a criminal case, the Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay against the defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Evidence - Confrontation Clause: What is the rule for Testimonial Statement?

A statement is testimonial when its primary purpose is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to a later criminal prosecution.

Evidence - Confrontation Clause: What is the rule for Medical and Ordinary Business Records?

Statements made primarily for medical diagnosis or treatment are generally nontestimonial, and ordinary business records prepared for administrative or medical purposes are generally nontestimonial.

Evidence - Privileges: What is the rule for Federal Privilege Law?

In federal criminal cases, privilege is governed by federal common law as interpreted by courts in light of reason and experience, unless the Constitution, a federal statute, or Supreme Court-prescribed rules provide otherwise.

Evidence - Marital Privileges: What is the rule for Two Separate Privileges?

There are two separate marital privileges: the adverse spousal testimony privilege and the confidential marital communications privilege.

Evidence - Adverse Spousal Testimony Privilege: What is the core rule?

In a criminal case, a witness-spouse may refuse to testify adversely against the defendant-spouse, and the privilege belongs only to the witness-spouse.

Evidence - Adverse Spousal Testimony Privilege: What is the rule for Existing Marriage Required?

The adverse spousal testimony privilege applies only during a valid existing marriage and ends when the marriage ends.

Evidence - Adverse Spousal Testimony Privilege: What is the rule for Scope?

The adverse spousal testimony privilege applies only when one spouse is asked to testify adversely against the other spouse in a criminal case.

Evidence - Confidential Marital Communications Privilege: What is the core rule?

The confidential marital communications privilege protects confidential communications made between spouses during a valid marriage and applies in both civil and criminal cases.

Evidence - Confidential Marital Communications Privilege: What is the rule for Confidential Communication?

A marital communication is confidential if it was made privately between spouses and was intended to remain confidential.

Evidence - Confidential Marital Communications Privilege: What is the rule for Holder?

The confidential marital communications privilege is generally held by both spouses, so either spouse may assert it to prevent disclosure of a protected communication.

Evidence - Confidential Marital Communications Privilege: What is the rule for Survival?

The confidential marital communications privilege survives the end of the marriage and continues to protect confidential communications made during the marriage.

Evidence - Confidential Marital Communications Privilege: What is the rule for Scope Limitation?

The confidential marital communications privilege protects communications, not physical acts, observations, or facts learned independently of the communication.

Evidence - Confidential Marital Communications Privilege: What is the rule for Third-Party Presence?

A marital communication made in the presence of a third person is generally not confidential and is generally not protected by the privilege.

Evidence - Confidential Marital Communications Privilege: What is the rule for Exceptions?

Marital privileges generally do not apply in litigation between spouses or in criminal proceedings involving crimes committed by one spouse against the other spouse or against a child of either spouse.

Evidence - Privilege and Hearsay: What is the rule for Separate Issues?

Privilege and hearsay are separate admissibility issues; a statement may be excluded by privilege even if it satisfies a hearsay exception, and a statement may be excluded as hearsay even if no privilege applies.

Evidence and Criminal Procedure - Miranda: What is the core rule?

Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation; absent a valid waiver or exception, statements obtained through custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings are inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.

Evidence and Criminal Procedure - Miranda: What is the rule for Custody?

Custody exists when a reasonable person in the suspect's position would not feel free to terminate the encounter and leave.

Evidence and Criminal Procedure - Miranda: What is the rule for Interrogation?

Interrogation includes express questioning and its functional equivalent, meaning words or actions police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.

Evidence and Criminal Procedure - Miranda: What is the rule for Public Safety Exception?

Police may ask questions reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for public safety without first giving Miranda warnings, and the defendant's answer may be admitted despite the absence of warnings.

Evidence and Criminal Procedure - Miranda: What is the rule for Valid Waiver and Voluntariness?

After proper Miranda warnings, a defendant's statement is generally admissible only if the defendant validly waived the rights and the statement was voluntary.

Evidence and Criminal Procedure - Defendant Statements: What is the rule for FRE and Constitution Gatekeeping?

A defendant's own statement offered by the prosecution is not hearsay as an opposing-party statement, but Miranda or due process may still require exclusion if the statement was obtained through custodial interrogation without warnings, without a valid waiver, or through coercion.

Evidence - FRE 609: What is the rule for Crimen Falsi Conviction?

A conviction involving dishonesty or false statement, including perjury, fraud, false statement, or criminal deceit, must be admitted to impeach any witness if it is within the 10-year window, regardless of whether it is a felony or misdemeanor.

Evidence - FRE 609: What is the rule for Non-Crimen Falsi Felony?

A felony conviction not involving dishonesty or false statement may be admitted to impeach a witness if the conviction or release from confinement occurred within the last 10 years and the conviction satisfies the applicable balancing test.

Evidence - FRE 609: What is the rule for 10-Year Clock?

The 10-year period for conviction impeachment runs from the later of the date of conviction or the witness's release from confinement for that conviction.

Evidence - FRE 609: What is the rule for Civil Witness and Criminal Non-Defendant Witness?

For a civil witness or a witness in a criminal case who is not the criminal defendant, a non-crimen falsi felony within the 10-year window is admissible subject to ordinary Rule 403.

Evidence - FRE 609: What is the rule for Ordinary Rule 403?

Under ordinary Rule 403, evidence is admissible unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or cumulative evidence.

Evidence - FRE 609: What is the rule for Criminal Defendant-Witness?

For a criminal defendant-witness, a non-crimen falsi felony within the 10-year window is admissible only if its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect to that defendant.

Evidence - FRE 609: What is the rule for Reverse 403?

Reverse 403 means the conviction is admitted only if probative value outweighs prejudicial effect to the criminal defendant, making admission harder than ordinary Rule 403.

Evidence - FRE 609: What is the rule for Old Convictions?

If more than 10 years have passed since the conviction or release from confinement, whichever is later, any conviction is admissible only if its probative value, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect and the proponent gives reasonable written notice.

Evidence - FRE 609: What is the rule for Non-Crimen Falsi Misdemeanor?

A non-crimen falsi misdemeanor conviction is not admissible under FRE 609 because it is neither a felony nor a crime involving dishonesty or false statement.

Evidence - FRE 608(b): What is the rule for Specific Instances of Conduct?

On cross-examination, the court may allow inquiry into specific instances of a witness's conduct if they are probative of the witness's character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

Evidence - FRE 608(b): What is the rule for Extrinsic Evidence Ban?

Except for criminal convictions under FRE 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove a specific instance of conduct offered only to attack or support a witness's character for truthfulness.

Evidence - FRE 608(b): What is the rule for Effect of Denial?

If a witness denies a specific act of untruthfulness asked about under FRE 608(b), the examiner generally must accept the answer and may not prove the act with outside evidence solely for character impeachment.

Evidence - FRE 608(b): What is the rule for Authentication Not Enough?

Authentication proves that a document is what it purports to be, but it does not override FRE 608(b)'s ban on extrinsic evidence offered solely to prove a specific act of untruthfulness.

Evidence - Hearsay Declarant Impeachment: What is the rule for Rule 806?

When a hearsay statement has been admitted, the declarant's credibility may be attacked by any evidence that would be admissible for that purpose if the declarant had testified as a witness.

Evidence - Hearsay Declarant Impeachment: What is the rule for Inconsistent Statement of Hearsay Declarant?

When a hearsay declarant's statement has been admitted, the court may admit evidence of the declarant's inconsistent statement or conduct to attack the declarant's credibility, regardless of when the inconsistent statement occurred and regardless of whether the declarant had an opportunity to explain or deny it.

Torts - Negligence: What are the elements?

Negligence requires duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages.

Torts - Negligence: What is the rule for Duty of Reasonable Care?

A person owes a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to avoid creating an unreasonable risk of physical harm to others.

Torts - Negligence: What is the rule for Breach?

A defendant breaches the duty of reasonable care by failing to act as a reasonably prudent person or entity would under similar circumstances.

Torts - Actual Cause: What is the rule for But-For Causation?

Actual cause exists when the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct.

Torts - Proximate Cause: What is the core rule?

Proximate cause exists when the plaintiff's injury is a foreseeable result of the defendant's breach and no unforeseeable superseding cause breaks the chain of causation.

Torts - Proximate Cause: What is the rule for Type of Harm?

Proximate cause is satisfied when the plaintiff suffers the same general type of harm that made the defendant's conduct risky or negligent in the first place.

Torts - Proximate Cause: What is the rule for Exact Manner Not Required?

The defendant need not foresee the exact manner in which the injury occurs; it is enough that the injury falls within the general scope of the risk created by the defendant's conduct.

Torts - Intervening Causes: What is the rule for Foreseeable Intervening Act?

A foreseeable intervening act does not break the chain of proximate cause.

Torts - Intervening Causes: What is the rule for Superseding Cause?

A superseding cause is an unforeseeable and extraordinary intervening act that breaks the chain of proximate cause and relieves the original defendant of liability.