Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Affidavit Drafting

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Affidavit DraftingQuestion 1 of 20

You are defending a small corporation against a lawsuit filed in a federal court in State A. Your client's only office is in State B, and it conducts all of its business from that office via its website. The plaintiff, a resident of State A, bought a product from your client's website and claims it was defective. You are filing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that your client lacks the necessary minimum contacts with State A.

To support this motion, which individual is the most appropriate affiant, and what key fact should they attest to? Select one.

The corporation's CEO, to state that the corporation never purposefully availed itself of the laws and benefits of State A.

The corporation's IT director, to state that the corporation's website is passive and only allows customers to view information, not place orders.

The corporation's sales manager, to state that the corporation has never sent employees, opened an office, or run advertising campaigns specifically targeting residents of State A.

The corporation's attorney, to state that based on a review of the law, the corporation's contacts with State A are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Affidavit Drafting

Practice Affidavit Drafting in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Affidavit Drafting, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

To support this motion, which individual is the most appropriate affiant, and what key fact should they attest to? Select one.

The corporation's CEO, to state that the corporation never purposefully availed itself of the laws and benefits of State A.
The corporation's IT director, to state that the corporation's website is passive and only allows customers to view information, not place orders.
The corporation's sales manager, to state that the corporation has never sent employees, opened an office, or run advertising campaigns specifically targeting residents of State A. (correct answer)
The corporation's attorney, to state that based on a review of the law, the corporation's contacts with State A are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.

Explanation: The key to defeating personal jurisdiction is to provide facts showing a lack of purposeful availment. The sales manager is the most likely person to have personal knowledge of the company's marketing, sales, and physical presence (or lack thereof) in a particular state. The statement in C provides specific, concrete facts (no employees, no office, no targeted advertising) that directly negate the elements of purposeful availment. (A) is incorrect because 'purposefully availed' is a legal conclusion. The affidavit should state facts that allow the court to reach that conclusion. (B) is incorrect because the facts of the case state the plaintiff bought a product from the website, so a statement that the website is passive would be factually inaccurate and perjurious. (D) is incorrect because the attorney is not a fact witness. The attorney's role is to make legal arguments in the motion brief, not to provide factual evidence through an affidavit.

Question 2

You are representing a landlord in an eviction proceeding against a tenant for non-payment of rent. The tenant has filed a counterclaim, alleging a breach of the warranty of habitability due to a persistent roof leak. Your client wants to submit an affidavit to support a motion to dismiss the counterclaim, stating that the leak was promptly and properly repaired. Your client hired a professional roofing company to perform the work.

Who is the best affiant to provide evidence that the repair was completed properly, and what should their affidavit state? Select one.

The landlord, stating that they hired a reputable roofer who confirmed the repair was complete and effective.
The roofer who performed the repair, stating that they have ten years of experience and, in their expert opinion, the leak was fully and permanently fixed.
The roofer who performed the repair, describing the specific steps taken: 'I removed the damaged shingles, replaced the underlayment with new waterproof membrane, and installed new matching shingles on June 5.' (correct answer)
The landlord, stating that after the repair date, the tenant never again complained about the roof leaking, thus implying the repair was successful.

Explanation: The issue is whether the repair was done properly. The roofer has direct, personal knowledge of the work performed. An affidavit should contain specific facts, not opinions or conclusions. Choice C provides a detailed, factual account of the work performed. This allows the court to conclude the repair was adequate. (A) is inadmissible hearsay. The landlord is reporting what the roofer told them. The landlord lacks personal knowledge of the repair itself. (B) is improper. While the roofer is an expert, an affidavit for summary judgment should state facts. The statement that the leak was 'fully and permanently fixed' is a conclusion. The factual basis for that conclusion is what's needed, which is provided in C. (D) is a statement about the tenant's actions (or lack thereof), which is speculative as to the reason. The tenant's silence is not conclusive proof that the repair was successful.

Question 3

You are representing the defendant in a lawsuit where the plaintiff has moved for summary judgment. Your defense relies on the testimony of a third-party witness who is currently out of the country and cannot be reached. You need to oppose the summary judgment motion but cannot present the witness's affidavit at this time.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, what is the most appropriate statement to include in an affidavit you file on behalf of your client in opposition to the motion? Select one.

I object to the motion for summary judgment because we have not had adequate time for discovery, and a key witness is unavailable.
The motion should be denied because a genuine dispute of fact will be shown once we depose the unavailable witness upon their return.
I have been advised by counsel that the testimony of the unavailable witness is crucial to our defense, and it would be prejudicial to rule on the motion without it.
I cannot present facts essential to justify our opposition. The witness is out of the country. We believe the witness will testify that they saw the plaintiff cause the accident. We have been unable to contact them despite diligent efforts. (correct answer)

Explanation: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) allows a court to deny or defer a summary judgment motion if the nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition. The affidavit must specify the reasons. Choice D does exactly this. It states why an affidavit cannot be obtained (witness is unavailable), what the affiant believes the witness will testify to (the substance of the expected testimony), and that efforts have been made to obtain the testimony. (A) and (B) are conclusory and argumentative; they belong in a brief, not an affidavit, and lack the specificity required by Rule 56(d). (C) improperly relies on what counsel advised, which is not based on the affiant's personal knowledge and involves privileged communication.

Question 4

You represent a construction company that is being sued by a homeowner for breach of contract. The homeowner alleges that your client failed to complete a renovation project by the agreed-upon date. Your client's defense is that the delay was excused because the homeowner repeatedly changed the plans, requiring extra time. The homeowner has moved for summary judgment, submitting an affidavit that no changes were requested after the contract was signed.

To oppose the motion, you are drafting an affidavit for your client's project manager. Which statement would most effectively create a genuine issue of material fact? Select one.

On May 10, the homeowner sent me a text message that reads: 'I've decided I want the kitchen island to be 2 feet longer. Please adjust.' This change required us to re-order granite and delayed the project by three weeks. (correct answer)
On at least five separate occasions after the contract was signed, the homeowner requested significant changes that were not in the original blueprints.
The homeowner's delays and changes to the original plan constitute a waiver of the contract's completion date.
The homeowner's affidavit is false because he constantly interfered with our work and requested numerous changes throughout the project.

Explanation: When facing a motion for summary judgment, you need to create a genuine issue of material fact that requires trial resolution. The opposing party claims no changes were made, so your affidavit must provide specific, concrete evidence that directly contradicts this assertion. Option A is most effective because it provides specific, verifiable evidence: a dated text message with exact quoted language requesting a concrete change (extending the kitchen island by 2 feet), plus specific consequences (re-ordering granite, three-week delay). This creates a clear factual dispute that can't be resolved without trial - either this text exists or it doesn't, and its contents directly contradict the homeowner's sworn statement. Option B fails because it's too vague and conclusory. "At least five occasions" and "significant changes" lack the specificity needed to create a genuine factual dispute. A court can't evaluate whether this contradicts the homeowner's affidavit without more concrete details. Option C presents a legal conclusion about waiver rather than factual evidence. Summary judgment motions require factual disputes, not competing legal theories that could be resolved as a matter of law. Option D is conclusory and argumentative without providing specific supporting facts. Saying the homeowner "constantly interfered" and made "numerous changes" doesn't give the court concrete evidence to evaluate - it's just the project manager's characterization. Key strategy: In opposing summary judgment, specificity beats generality. Provide concrete, verifiable facts (dates, quotes, measurable impacts) rather than conclusions or vague assertions. Courts need tangible evidence they can evaluate, not legal arguments or unsupported characterizations.

Question 5

You are representing a plaintiff who is suing for injuries sustained in a car accident. The defendant driver has moved for summary judgment, claiming that a sudden, unforeseeable mechanical failure of his brakes caused the accident. To support the motion, the defendant attached a receipt for brake service performed one month before the accident. You have located the mechanic who performed the service, and he is willing to provide an affidavit.

What must the mechanic attest to in his affidavit to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant's negligence? Select one.

The defendant's claim of a sudden brake failure is not credible, as a proper inspection was performed.
The brake service I performed was limited to replacing the brake fluid, and I did not inspect the brake pads as it was not requested by the defendant.
It is highly probable that the accident was caused by the defendant's failure to properly maintain his vehicle, not a sudden mechanical failure.
When I serviced the defendant's brakes one month before the accident, I told him that his brake pads were severely worn and needed immediate replacement. The defendant refused to authorize the replacement. (correct answer)

Explanation: When facing a summary judgment motion, you need to understand what creates a "genuine issue of material fact." The moving party (defendant) claims no reasonable jury could find them negligent due to an unforeseeable brake failure. To defeat this motion, you must present evidence showing that reasonable minds could differ about whether the defendant acted negligently. Answer D creates the strongest genuine issue of material fact because it establishes that the defendant had actual notice of a dangerous brake condition and chose to ignore professional advice to fix it. This transforms the "sudden, unforeseeable" failure into a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's decision to drive with known defective brakes. A jury could reasonably conclude this constitutes negligence. Answer A fails because it only challenges credibility without providing specific facts about what the inspection revealed or why the claim isn't credible. Mere skepticism isn't enough for summary judgment purposes. Answer B actually helps the defendant's case by suggesting the mechanic had limited opportunity to discover brake problems, since he only changed fluid and didn't inspect the pads. This supports rather than undermines the "unforeseeable failure" defense. Answer C uses conclusory language ("highly probable") without providing the underlying factual basis that would allow a jury to reach that conclusion. Courts need specific facts, not expert opinions about probability. Strategy tip: On summary judgment questions, look for evidence that provides specific, concrete facts rather than conclusions or opinions. The strongest evidence gives the jury a factual basis to make their own determination about liability.

Question 6

You are representing a plaintiff who was struck by a falling object at a construction site. To hold the general contractor liable, you need to show it had control over the site safety procedures. The general contractor has moved for summary judgment, submitting an affidavit from its president stating that all safety matters were delegated to the subcontractors. You intend to submit an affidavit from one of the subcontractor's employees.

Which of the following statements in the employee's affidavit would be most effective at creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the general contractor's control? Select one.

It was my understanding that the general contractor was ultimately responsible for safety at the entire job site.
On three separate occasions, I personally observed the general contractor's site superintendent halt our work to correct what he described as a safety violation. (correct answer)
The general contractor should be held liable for the unsafe conditions at the site because it had the power to prevent them.
The subcontracting agreement, in my opinion, did not fully absolve the general contractor of its duty to maintain a safe worksite.

Explanation: The issue is control. The best evidence is a specific example of the general contractor exercising control over safety. Choice B provides factual statements of personal observation ('I personally observed') of the general contractor's agent (the superintendent) directly intervening in a subcontractor's work for safety reasons. This is powerful evidence of retained control. (A) is a statement of 'understanding,' which is vague and may not be based on personal knowledge. (C) is a legal argument about liability and duty. (D) is an improper opinion on the legal effect of a contract, which the employee is not qualified to give.

Question 7

You are representing a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit against a grocery store. The plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor in one of the aisles. The store has moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no notice of the spill. You have deposed a former employee of the store who is willing to sign an affidavit in opposition to the motion. The former employee worked at the store on the day of the incident.

To create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the store's constructive notice of the spill, which of the following statements would be the most effective to include in the former employee's affidavit? Select one.

The store was negligent in its failure to inspect the aisles, which was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.
Based on my experience, the store's policy was to inspect the aisles every hour, but this policy was frequently ignored by the staff on duty.
On the day of the incident, I worked a full eight-hour shift. During that shift, I did not see any employee walk down the aisle where the plaintiff fell to inspect it. (correct answer)
It is my belief that the spill must have been on the floor for a long time, giving the store more than enough time to discover it.

Explanation: An affidavit supporting or opposing a motion for summary judgment must be based on personal knowledge and set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence. Choice C contains a specific factual statement based on the affiant's personal observation ('I did not see any employee...'). This fact creates a reasonable inference that the aisle was not inspected for at least eight hours, which is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to constructive notice. (A) is incorrect because it states a legal conclusion ('negligent,' 'proximate cause'), which is improper for an affidavit. (B) is incorrect because while it discusses store policy, the statement about the policy being 'frequently ignored' is a general assertion, less powerful than a specific observation on the day of the incident. (D) is incorrect because it states a belief or speculation ('It is my belief that...'), not a fact based on personal knowledge.

Question 8

You are defending a journalist in a defamation lawsuit brought by a public figure. The plaintiff must prove 'actual malice,' meaning the journalist either knew the defamatory statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. The journalist's article was based on information from a confidential source. The source is now willing to provide an affidavit supporting your motion for summary judgment.

Which of the following statements in the source's affidavit would be most effective at negating the element of actual malice? Select one.

Before speaking with the journalist, I spoke with two other individuals who corroborated the information, and I informed the journalist of this corroboration. (correct answer)
I told the journalist that the statement was true, and I had no reason to doubt its accuracy at the time.
The journalist did not act with actual malice when publishing the story because she was relying on me, a credible source.
The journalist is a careful and diligent reporter who would never knowingly publish a false statement.

Explanation: When a public figure sues for defamation, they must prove the defendant acted with "actual malice" — either knowing the statement was false or acting with reckless disregard for truth. Your goal is to show the journalist's conduct fell short of this high standard. Choice A is most effective because it demonstrates the journalist received information that had been corroborated by multiple sources. When a reporter relies on a source who has verified information with two other individuals and communicates this verification process, it shows reasonable journalistic care rather than reckless disregard. This type of fact-checking and corroboration is exactly what courts look for when determining whether a journalist acted responsibly. Choice B is weaker because it only shows the source believed the information was true, but doesn't demonstrate any verification process. A journalist can still act with reckless disregard even when relying on a confident source if there are obvious red flags. Choice C contains a legal conclusion rather than factual evidence. Affidavits should provide facts that allow the court to draw legal conclusions, not state the conclusions directly. This statement also doesn't explain why the source is credible. Choice D offers general character evidence about the journalist but provides no specific facts about her conduct regarding this particular story. Courts focus on the defendant's actual behavior in the specific instance, not general reputation. Remember: In actual malice cases, focus on concrete evidence showing the defendant's verification efforts and reasonable reliance, not conclusions or general character testimony.

Question 9

You represent a corporation being sued by a creditor who seeks to pierce the corporate veil and hold the sole shareholder personally liable. The creditor alleges that the corporation was merely the shareholder's 'alter ego.' To support this claim, the creditor must show that the shareholder disregarded corporate formalities. You are preparing your shareholder-client for a deposition and considering what an affidavit might say to preemptively counter these claims in a future summary judgment motion.

To rebut the 'alter ego' allegation, which of the following draft statements would be most effective for the shareholder to include in an affidavit? Select one.

The corporation was not my alter ego, and I have always respected the corporate form.
I have never commingled my personal funds with corporate funds; the corporation has always maintained its own separate bank account, from which all corporate debts were paid. (correct answer)
All corporate actions were undertaken for legitimate business purposes and were properly authorized.
Piercing the corporate veil would be unjust in this case because the creditor knowingly contracted with the corporation, not with me personally.

Explanation: Piercing the corporate veil often hinges on specific facts showing a disregard for the corporate entity, such as commingling funds. Choice B provides specific, factual denials of such conduct. It states that separate bank accounts were maintained and that corporate debts were paid from the corporate account. These are concrete facts within the shareholder's knowledge that directly counter a key factor in the alter ego analysis. (A) is purely conclusory ('not my alter ego,' 'respected the corporate form'). (C) is also conclusory ('legitimate business purposes,' 'properly authorized') without providing the underlying facts (e.g., 'minutes were kept of all board meetings where resolutions were passed'). (D) is a legal argument about fairness and the creditor's expectations, which belongs in a legal brief, not a factual affidavit.

Question 10

You represent a plaintiff claiming title to a strip of land through adverse possession. The defendant, the record title holder, has moved for summary judgment. To defeat the motion, you must provide evidence that your client's possession was 'hostile,' meaning without the owner's permission. Your client occupied the land for the entire statutory period, built a shed on it, and planted a garden.

You are drafting an affidavit for your client. Which statement best supports the element of hostile possession? Select one.

My possession of the land was hostile and adverse to the rights of the record title holder for the entire statutory period.
I never asked for, nor did I ever receive, permission from the defendant or any prior owner to use the strip of land. (correct answer)
I believed the strip of land was mine, so I treated it as my own property by building a shed and planting a garden.
The defendant knew I was using the land but never objected, so he implicitly consented to my possession.

Explanation: Hostile possession means the possession is without the owner's consent. The most direct factual statement to support this element is one that negates permission. Choice B is a clear, factual statement that the client never had permission. This is a fact within the client's personal knowledge. (A) is a legal conclusion ('hostile and adverse') and is improper. (C) describes the possessor's subjective belief. While this may be relevant in some jurisdictions, the core of 'hostile' possession is the lack of permission, which B addresses more directly and universally. (D) is legally incorrect and damaging. Stating that the owner 'implicitly consented' directly contradicts the requirement of hostile, non-permissive use.

Question 11

Which of the following statements in the employee's affidavit would be most effective at creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the general contractor's control? Select one.

It was my understanding that the general contractor was ultimately responsible for safety at the entire job site.
On three separate occasions, I personally observed the general contractor's site superintendent halt our work to correct what he described as a safety violation. (correct answer)
The general contractor should be held liable for the unsafe conditions at the site because it had the power to prevent them.
The subcontracting agreement, in my opinion, did not fully absolve the general contractor of its duty to maintain a safe worksite.

Question 12

You represent a defendant who was allegedly served with a summons and complaint by a process server who left the documents with the defendant's teenage son at the defendant's home. Your client claims he never received the documents. You are filing a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process.

To support the motion, you will submit an affidavit from your client. Which of the following statements is the most crucial and appropriate to include? Select one.

The service of process was defective because my son is not a person of suitable age and discretion.
My son, who is 14 years old, has confirmed to me that he does not remember any process server coming to the door or giving him any legal papers.
I was out of town on the date of alleged service. The first time I learned about this lawsuit was when I received a notice of default in the mail two months later. (correct answer)
I have a constitutional right to proper notice of a lawsuit against me, and that right was violated in this case.

Explanation: The key issue in a challenge to service is whether the defendant received notice. The affidavit must contain facts from the defendant's personal knowledge. Choice C provides direct, factual statements about the defendant's whereabouts on the date of service and when he first learned of the suit. These facts strongly support the claim that he did not receive the papers from his son and thus did not have notice. (A) is a legal conclusion. Whether a teenager is of 'suitable age and discretion' is for the court to decide based on the facts. (B) is inadmissible hearsay. The defendant is reporting what his son told him. The son would need to provide his own affidavit. (D) is a statement of legal principle, not a fact, and is inappropriate for an affidavit.

Question 13

You represent a client who is being sued for breach of an oral contract. Your client's defense is the statute of frauds. The plaintiff argues that the 'part performance' exception applies. The alleged contract was for the sale of a unique piece of industrial equipment. The plaintiff claims that, in reliance on the oral agreement, they spent $50,000 to specially reconfigure their factory to accommodate the machine. The plaintiff has moved for summary judgment.

To oppose the motion, you are drafting an affidavit for your client. Which statement would be most effective at defeating the part performance argument? Select one.

The plaintiff's alleged part performance is not unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement.
The statute of frauds requires a contract for the sale of goods over a certain amount to be in writing, and no such writing exists.
Even if the plaintiff did reconfigure their factory, those actions could have been taken for any number of reasons, including to accommodate a machine from a different supplier.
I was not aware that the plaintiff was reconfiguring their factory. They never informed me of these plans or the costs involved. (correct answer)

Explanation: When facing a statute of frauds defense, plaintiffs often invoke the part performance exception to enforce oral contracts. However, this exception requires that the alleged part performance be both substantial and unequivocally referable to the specific oral agreement in question. The most effective defense here attacks the foundation of the part performance claim by demonstrating lack of reasonable reliance. Answer D is correct because it establishes that your client had no knowledge of the plaintiff's factory reconfiguration. If the defendant was unaware of the plaintiff's actions, this strongly suggests the plaintiff wasn't truly relying on any oral agreement with your client. How can someone reasonably rely on an agreement when the other party doesn't even know about the reliance? This cuts to the heart of the part performance doctrine, which requires justifiable reliance. Answer A states the correct legal standard but doesn't provide the factual foundation needed in an affidavit. Answer B merely restates the statute of frauds rule without addressing the part performance exception—this misses the point entirely since the plaintiff is trying to circumvent the writing requirement. Answer C attempts to show the actions weren't unequivocally referable to the agreement, but it's speculative and weaker than demonstrating complete lack of knowledge. Strategy tip: In statute of frauds questions involving part performance, look for facts that undermine reasonable reliance. Lack of communication or knowledge between parties is often the strongest factual defense, as it suggests no genuine agreement existed to rely upon.

Question 14

You represent a software development company in a contract dispute. Your client entered into a written agreement to create a custom application for a customer. The contract contains a merger clause. After delivery, the customer refused to pay, claiming the application lacks a specific feature. Your client insists this feature was never part of the agreement. The customer claims that during negotiations, your client's CEO orally promised to include the feature. Your client is moving for summary judgment based on the parol evidence rule.

To support the motion for summary judgment, you need to draft an affidavit for your client's CEO. Which statement is most appropriate for the CEO to attest to in the affidavit? Select one.

The parol evidence rule bars the customer from introducing evidence of any alleged prior oral agreements.
The written contract was intended by both parties to be the complete and final expression of their agreement.
Any alleged oral promise to include the feature is unenforceable because it was not included in the final written contract.
I never promised to include the feature the customer is now demanding; their claim to the contrary is false. (correct answer)

Explanation: The core factual dispute is whether the oral promise was made. For a summary judgment affidavit, the affiant must state facts based on personal knowledge. The CEO has personal knowledge of what they did or did not say. Choice D is a direct, factual denial of the customer's central claim. This statement, if unrebutted by admissible evidence from the customer, would support summary judgment. (A) and (C) are incorrect because they are statements of legal argument and conclusion (about the parol evidence rule and enforceability), which are inappropriate for an affidavit. The lawyer makes these arguments in the brief, not the witness in the affidavit. (B) is conclusory regarding the intent of 'both parties.' While the CEO can attest to their own company's intent, they lack personal knowledge of the other party's intent, making this statement weaker and potentially objectionable.

Question 15

Which of the following statements in the source's affidavit would be most effective at negating the element of actual malice? Select one.

Before speaking with the journalist, I spoke with two other individuals who corroborated the information, and I informed the journalist of this corroboration. (correct answer)
I told the journalist that the statement was true, and I had no reason to doubt its accuracy at the time.
The journalist did not act with actual malice when publishing the story because she was relying on me, a credible source.
The journalist is a careful and diligent reporter who would never knowingly publish a false statement.

Question 16

To oppose the motion, you are drafting an affidavit for your client. Which statement would be most effective at defeating the part performance argument? Select one.

The plaintiff's alleged part performance is not unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement.
The statute of frauds requires a contract for the sale of goods over a certain amount to be in writing, and no such writing exists.
Even if the plaintiff did reconfigure their factory, those actions could have been taken for any number of reasons, including to accommodate a machine from a different supplier.
I was not aware that the plaintiff was reconfiguring their factory. They never informed me of these plans or the costs involved. (correct answer)

Question 17

To support the motion for summary judgment, you need to draft an affidavit for your client's CEO. Which statement is most appropriate for the CEO to attest to in the affidavit? Select one.

The parol evidence rule bars the customer from introducing evidence of any alleged prior oral agreements.
The written contract was intended by both parties to be the complete and final expression of their agreement.
Any alleged oral promise to include the feature is unenforceable because it was not included in the final written contract.
I never promised to include the feature the customer is now demanding; their claim to the contrary is false. (correct answer)

Question 18

Who is the best affiant to provide evidence that the repair was completed properly, and what should their affidavit state? Select one.

The landlord, stating that they hired a reputable roofer who confirmed the repair was complete and effective.
The roofer who performed the repair, stating that they have ten years of experience and, in their expert opinion, the leak was fully and permanently fixed.
The roofer who performed the repair, describing the specific steps taken: 'I removed the damaged shingles, replaced the underlayment with new waterproof membrane, and installed new matching shingles on June 5.' (correct answer)
The landlord, stating that after the repair date, the tenant never again complained about the roof leaking, thus implying the repair was successful.

Question 19

You are drafting an affidavit for your client. Which statement best supports the element of hostile possession? Select one.

My possession of the land was hostile and adverse to the rights of the record title holder for the entire statutory period.
I never asked for, nor did I ever receive, permission from the defendant or any prior owner to use the strip of land. (correct answer)
I believed the strip of land was mine, so I treated it as my own property by building a shed and planting a garden.
The defendant knew I was using the land but never objected, so he implicitly consented to my possession.

Question 20

To support the motion, you will submit an affidavit from your client. Which of the following statements is the most crucial and appropriate to include? Select one.

The service of process was defective because my son is not a person of suitable age and discretion.
My son, who is 14 years old, has confirmed to me that he does not remember any process server coming to the door or giving him any legal papers.
I was out of town on the date of alleged service. The first time I learned about this lawsuit was when I received a notice of default in the mail two months later. (correct answer)
I have a constitutional right to proper notice of a lawsuit against me, and that right was violated in this case.