Stark & Stark Shareholder Paul W. Norris authored the article “Contesting a Will: Best Practices for Successful Probate Litigation,” which was published on NJ.com on June 24, 2016. The article explains the process of what typically will happen if a will is contested after a loved one passes away. This process can only begin once “the named executor or executrix in the will then files this document with the county surrogate.” This process is called “admitting the will to probate,” and starts a process on a specific time schedule that must be followed in order to properly submit any contestations of the will.
Many divorce cases include a determination of the value of a business for purposes of equitable distribution between the parties. Whether the business in question is a sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation, establishing a sound and supportable value is essential.
The first step is to engage a skilled valuation analyst. The second and equally important step is to determine the appropriate level of service to be provided; that is, whether the analysis should be, in technical parlance, a “calculation of value” or a “full valuation.”
There are many rules in our court system pertaining to the filing of pleadings. In order to start a divorce case in court, a Complaint for Divorce must be filed. The date the complaint is marked “filed” is generally the date we use for valuing assets and debts subject to equitable distribution. In order to obtain court-ordered relief during the pendency of a divorce case with regard to temporary child support, alimony, or other issues, a motion must be filed requesting such relief. Generally, relief is granted as of the date that the motion was filed.
In some cases we choose not to file a complaint right away, with the hope of settling the case prior to getting involved in litigation in the court system. In other cases, we may file a Complaint for Divorce in order to establish the cut-off date for equitable distribution, but our goal may be to stay out of court and try to settle the case without court intervention.
Best Lawyers, published by Woodward/White, Inc., has named Shareholder John Eory, Co-Chair of the firm’s Family Law Group, as 2017 “Lawyer of the Year” for Family Law. Stark & Stark would like to congratulate Mr. Eory on this distinction.
“Lawyer of the Year” recognitions are awarded to individual attorneys with the highest overall peer-feedback for a specific Practice Area and geographic location. Only one lawyer is recognized as the “Lawyer of the Year” for each specialty and location (source).
John S. Eory dedicates his practice to divorce, custody, domestic violence, and other family law matters. He is the former Chair of the New Jersey Supreme Court District VII Ethics Committee. Additionally, Mr. Eory is certified by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) as a matrimonial lawyer. He is also a fellow of the AAML.
*No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Courts of New Jersey. For more information and methodology please click here
Best Lawyers announced “The Best Lawyers in America” rankings* for 2017, and 17 Stark & Stark attorneys have been named for the following practice areas: Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights, Bankruptcy Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Construction Litigation, Corporate Law, Family Law, Personal Injury Litigation for both Defendants and Plaintiffs, Real Estate Law, Trusts and Estates, and Workers’ Compensation Law.
For those unaware, after a Lower Court makes a final decision in a family court case, either party has a right to appeal that decision to the Appellate Court. A Notice of Appeal must be filed, along with any other relevant documents, within 45 days of the date of the entry of the Judgment.
The Appeal is based on the record and no new information is to be transmitted to the Appellate Division, and no testimony will be heard. The Appellate judges will review the underlying Order or Judgment, the transcript of the proceeding in the Lower Court (a typewritten volume which includes everything that was said in the courtroom by the attorneys, parties, other witnesses, and the judge), and the briefs submitted by the attorneys in the case arguing their client’s positions.
Stark & Stark is proud to congratulate Shareholder Dolores R. Kelley for being selected by NJBiz as a recipient of the 2016 Forty Under 40 Award.
Dolores R. Kelley is not only a respected Shareholder at Stark & Stark, she is the Practice Leader for the firm’s Beer and Spirit Group where she is responsible for driving the team’s entity formation, intellectual property, licensing, real estate, finance and operations activities in the growing brewery, brew pub, and distillery marketplace. Ms. Kelley also handles a wide range of matters for the real estate industry, including commercial, transactional, condominium and homeowner association formation and leasing; and represents lenders in commercial loan transactions. Ms. Kelley joined Stark & Stark in September of 2008 and is admitted to practice law in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
As most people know, there has been an on-going feud between Taylor Swift and Kayne West. Last night, more fuel was added to the fire when Kayne’s wife, Kim Kardashian, went to Snapchat and posted recordings of a conversation between Ms. Swift and Mr. West which purport to show that Taylor was aware of off-colored lyrics in one of Mr. West’s songs, and gave her blessing to include before the album released. To date, Taylor denies giving such approval. Taylor went to her Instagram account soon after, writing: “That moment when Kanye West secretly records your phone call.”
On July 5, 2016, the United States District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in the case entitled United States v. Nosal. The case involved a former employer and others using the password of another employee to hack into his former employer’s database in order to access and take information which belonged to his former employer.
The decision has gained a lot of attention and press because Mr. Nosal’s criminal conviction was based upon his use of another employee’s passwords. There are a large number of articles and blog posts warning that the holding in the case could result in the criminal prosecution of an individual who uses a friend’s Netflix or HBO GO password to access those sites. While that could be one result of the decision, I believe the holding in the Nosal case does not currently go that far. Per the Ninth Circuit, “this appeal is not about password sharing. Nor is it about violating a company’s internal computer use policies.” Rather, the case revolves around accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud as defined in the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
In many of my previous blogs I have discussed the procedure involved in contesting a Last Will and Testament. This blog shall focus on other side of the equation, the defense of a Will contest. Since there are many facets involved in the defense of a Will contest, we shall first focus on what the named Executor or Executrix must do upon being served with a Verified Complaint seeking to contest the validity of a Last Will and Testament. For the purposes of this blog, I will assume that the Executor had already taken the necessary steps to admit to probate the Last Will and Testament of the decedent.