written response to problem
For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.
One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.
For most problems you should be able to answer in a page or less, e.g. I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion.
5. Philip and Edith Beh purchased some property from Alfred M. Gromer and his wife. Sometime earlier, the Gromers had borrowed money from City Mortgage. They had signed a note and had given City Mortgage a second deed of trust on the property. There was also a first deed of trust on the property at the time the Behs purchased it. In the contract of sale between the Behs and the Gromers, the Behs promised to \"assume\" the second deed of trust of approximately $5.,000 at 6 percent interest. The Behs later defaulted on the first deed of trust. Foreclosure was held on the first deed of trust, but the proceeds of the sale left nothing for City Mortgage on its second deed of trust. City Mortgage then brought a lawsuit against the Behs to collect the balance due on the second deed of trust. When the Behs \"assumed\" the second deed of trust, did they become personally liable for it

Question

written response to problem

For the written response to the problem, I would encourage you to try to show that you can identify and explain the legal issue in the problem, tell me (briefly) what the relevant rule is (or factors that a court might consider), and apply the rule to the facts in the problem to arrive at a conclusion. As mentioned in class, I am not looking for the "correct" answer - there may not be a correct answer - but rather an explanation of how you would respond to the problem and then support your answer by referring to relevant legal principles and facts in the problem.

One way to think about this is via the "IRAC" method: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion - meaning try to identify the legal issue, explain the general rule applicable to the legal issue, analyze the facts in light of the issue and rule, and then reach and support your conclusion based on the foregoing.

For most problems you should be able to answer in a page or less, e.g. I don't need you to restate the facts and I don't need you to copy the textbook - instead I want you to develop comfort with the legal issues and try to reach a conclusion.

5. Philip and Edith Beh purchased some property from Alfred M. Gromer and his wife. Sometime earlier, the Gromers had borrowed money from City Mortgage. They had signed a note and had given City Mortgage a second deed of trust on the property. There was also a first deed of trust on the property at the time the Behs purchased it. In the contract of sale between the Behs and the Gromers, the Behs promised to \"assume\" the second deed of trust of approximately $5.,000 at 6 percent interest. The Behs later defaulted on the first deed of trust. Foreclosure was held on the first deed of trust, but the proceeds of the sale left nothing for City Mortgage on its second deed of trust. City Mortgage then brought a lawsuit against the Behs to collect the balance due on the second deed of trust. When the Behs \"assumed\" the second deed of trust, did they become personally liable for it