Rambo at the Reigns: When Boards Abuse Their Power

no picture
David J. Byrne, Shareholder and member of Stark & Stark's Community Associations Group was quoted in the article, Rambo at the Reigns: When Board Members Abuse Their Power, in the October 2007 issue of the New Jersey Cooperator.

The article discusses the ways in which power can be abused in a homeowners association, and the warning sings one can use to determine if the power given to a board member is being abused. The article also addresses ways in which residents can fight back against an abusive board member.

You can read the full article here.

Divorce Law Podcast - # 9

no picture
The Divorce Law Podcast is a 10 episode series presented by Robert Durst, Shareholder and Chairperson of Stark & Stark's Divorce Law Group.  The series is constructed so that listeners may use it as an "owners manual" for their divorce. 

This ninth installment of the Divorce Law Podcast will focus on the follow-up issues you will encounter after your divorce has been settled. This includes the enforcement and implementation of the judgment from your case, including any QDROs (Qualified Domestic Relations Order) that may have been determined during your case.

You can download the ninth installment here. (4.2 MB)

Episode 9 Show Notes (PDF)
Tags:

Internal Investigations: Currnet Issues, Practical Guidance

no picture
Kevin M. Hart, Shareholder and member of Stark & Stark 's Litigation group, was a participant in the September 2007 legal roundtable for GC Mid-Atlantic, titled Internal Investigations: Current Issues, Practical Guidance.

The panelists discussed various issues a company will face when the decision has been made to conduct an internal investigation of a corporation. Some of the topics discussed include the initial issues a company will face when conducting an investigation, deciding who will conduct the investigation, maintaining the integrity of the investigation, what kind of reports to provide once the investigation has concluded, and a discussion on compliance programs.

You can read the full report of the legal roundtable here.

Debunking New Jersey Family Law Myths - Part 1

no picture
Myth 1: The gender of a parent is the determining factor in establishing custody of a child

    Many clients seem to believe that a judge will award them custody of their child because “a judge will never separate a daughter from her mother or separate a son from their father”.  It is a common misconception that the New Jersey Family Courts use gender as the exclusive factor when deciding which parent is awarded custody of a child.
               
    The gender of a parent is just one piece in the complicated puzzle that our Courts refer to when administering the “best interest” test.  Sex-based presumptions have eroded in favor of an inquiry focused solely on the overall “best interests” of the child.  The “best interest” analysis takes into account the child’s general safety, happiness, mental and moral welfare as well as specific statutory factors including, but not limited to: (1) the fitness of the parents; (2) the preference of the child ; (3) the custodial parent’s employment responsibilities/schedule; (4) the needs of the child; (5) the child’s educational opportunities (will the child be able to continue at their present school) and (6) the child’s extracurricular activities.

    In the not so distant past,  New Jersey Courts have used gender as a determining factor for determining custody during the first seven years of a child’s life.  Our Courts followed the historically rooted “Tender Years Doctrine”, which forwards the presumption that a mother’s custodial care is ordinarily in the best interest of the child during the developmental period.  This doctrine has now been rejected by not only our courts, but the psychological community as well.

    In the recent Appellate Division case, Schottel v Kutyba, the mother of an adolescent female argued that the father, as a male, was incapable of raising their teenaged daughter.  The Appellate Division found no merit in this argument, held that it was constitutionally inappropriate and affirmed the father’s sole custody of the daughter.

    Courts are now required to conduct very detailed hearing and make specific conclusions of law and fact as to what is the “best interest” of the child when making a custody determination.
Tags:

Eliminating an Old Mortgage

no picture
When selling a home a buyer’s title search may uncover an old mortgage of the homeowner - or a prior owner, that was not discharged of record.  Frequently the mortgage has been paid off, but unfortunately just not discharged of record in the county clerk’s office.  There are ways to discharge such old mortgages depending on the particular situation.

The easiest is if the original mortgage was discharged and returned to the homeowner’s possession and the homeowner can locate it.  The original mortgage, marked as paid and discharged, can then be sent to the county clerk’s office for recording.

If the discharged mortgage has not been recorded, and cannot be located, the mortgage can be discharged of record by the filing of an affidavit provided the provisions of N.J.S.A. 46:18-11.5 et seq. apply.  The New Jersey Legislature enacted this law in 1999 to provide a relatively simple and expeditious means of removing mortgages from the record when a lender has failed to have a mortgage discharged, or canceled of record, in a timely manner.

Pursuant to this law, an attorney-at-law or licensed title insurance producer who has caused a “residential mortgage” to be paid can obtain its discharge by filing a detailed affidavit which sets forth the steps taken to obtain a discharge of the mortgage from the lender.  Specifically, the person signing the affidavit (the “affiant”) must attest to the following:
    1. Payment was made to the lender in accordance with a current, written pay-off letter, as defined by ... the Act;
    2.  the affiant knows that the lender received the payment;
    3.  a notice was sent to the lender by registered or certified mail at least 30 days after payment was received, advising it of the affiant’s intention to cause the mortgage to be discharged by affidavit;
    4.  a second notice was sent to the lender at least 30 days after the first notice was received; and
    5.  at least 15 days have elapsed since the lender received the second notice.

The affidavit with the above information is then attached to a discharge prepared by the affiant, and recorded.

If the facts surrounding the payoff of an old mortgage do not fit the requirements of N.J.S.A. 46:18-11.5 et seq., then a court action under N.J.S.A. 2A:51-1 et. seq. can also be commenced.  This type of action requires the filing of a complaint in Superior Court and thus is a more time consuming and costly endeavor.
 
Some mortgages are old enough that they are no longer enforceable.  Mortgages which have a maturity date at least 20 years last past, are no longer enforceable.  The New Jersey court ruled in Security National Partners v. Mahler, 336 N.J. Super. 101 (App. Div. 2000) that the statute of limitations for enforcement of a mortgage is 20 years.  Thus, a lender’s right to enforce a mortgage expires 20 years after the last payment is due.

Executive Recruiters Should Be Wary of Restrictive Covenants

no picture
Executive recruiters can often find themselves "stuck in the middle" of disputes between a former employer's candidates and perspective new employers. As restrictive covenants become more ubiquitous in employment, executive recruiters need to make themselves aware of the potential impact that non-solicitation, non-competition and/or non-disclosure agreements can have upon their perspective job placements.

A discussion with a potential candidate regarding employment contracts, including restrictive covenants, that they may have previously entered into with their employer is an essential first step to protecting the interests of the client and in defending against claims that a client has intentionally interfered with an existing restrictive covenant between an employee and his/her former employer. Other practical steps can be taken to help protect the recruiter and the candidate from being entangled in unnecessary litigation with former employers over restrictive covenants.

Divorce Law Podcast - # 8

no picture
The Divorce Law Podcast is a 10 episode series presented by Robert Durst, Shareholder and Chairperson of Stark & Stark's Divorce Law Group.  The series is constructed so that listeners may use it as an "owners manual" for their divorce. 

This eighth installment of the Divorce Law Podcast will focus on the actual trial of your case. This podacst will discuss the various steps and issues you may encounter if your divorce goes to trial, including a discussion on appealing the decision of your divorce.

You can download the eighth installment here. (4.5 MB)

Episode 8 Show Notes
(PDF)
Tags:

Custody In The Courtroom

no picture
When it comes to custody issues incident to a divorce case, they have always been dealt with in New Jersey’s Chancery Division, Family Part.  Unfortunately, if a parent doesn’t comply with a Court Order there are generally no serious consequences.

Recently, a frustrated father has tried something new.  He has sued his ex-wife for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress in the Law Division due to her alleged alienation of their children‘s affection.  In Law Division cases, you may seek damages for either negligent or intentional actions, and in this case, the father is requesting compensation and punitive damages for the psychological distress associated with his damaged relationship with his children. 

The parties had originally lived in Toronto, Canada as common law husband and wife and had two children.  In 2001, the parties separated and in 2006 the wife moved to Morris County, New Jersey.  She apparently changed her phone number, blocked emails from the children’s father and cut off all contact between the children and their father.

As a result, the father filed suit in the family court in Morris County to resume visitation.  After 14 months of litigation, he filed a suit for damages in the Law Division.

There is no legal precedent for bringing this type of action in New Jersey and it remains to be seen whether a new marital tort will be created in New Jersey for alienation of children’s affection or whether his suit will be dismissed, leaving the father to pursue his rights in Family Court.
Tags:

Timothy Duggan Featured on The American Law Journal

no picture
Timothy P. Duggan, Chair and Shareholder of Stark & Stark's Bankruptcy & Creditor's Rights Group, will be a guest on the November 12, 2007 episode of The American Law Journal. The show will air tonight at 8:00 PM on WFMZ-TV CHANNEL 69.

The episode will feature Mr. Duggan, and weekly host Christopher Naughton, Esq., as they discuss bankruptcy filings and the recent increase in foreclosures. Mr. Duggan will focus on the important issues creditors will face due to the recent increase in foreclosures, how the increase can impact their company, and what this will mean for the future of their business.

New Jersey's Probate Code & Child Support

no picture
In a recent ruling by the Appellate Division, in In the Matter of Rogiers, a parent who failed to support his child during her lifetime was entitled to a share in that child’s estate upon the child’s death.  According to New Jersey’s Probate Code, the intestate laws (which provide for the disposition of a decedent’s estate in the event there is no Will) allow parents to inherit from their child’s estate.

In the Rogiers’ case, the child was born severely handicapped as a result of a cervical cord injury at birth.  The mother filed a medical malpractice action against the hospital and won a $12.6 million dollar judgment.  The father had never supported his daughter during her lifetime. 

When the child died at age 22, the father sought to share in his daughter’s estate.  The child’s mother argued that he was never a real parent to her since he did not support her in any way.  The mother also made a claim for retroactive child support against the father. 

The Appellate Division in this case affirmed the Lower Court’s Decision that the father was entitled to one half of his daughter’s estate since the plain language of the Probate Code does not condition a parent’s right to take from a child’s estate on that parent having contributed to the child’s support.  With regard to the claim for retroactive child support, the Appellate Division found that such claims may be asserted; however, in this case, the trust that was established for the child from the medical malpractice action adequately provided for her needs and therefore no retroactive child support was awarded.

Currently, there are two bills pending in the New Jersey Legislature which would eliminate the right of a parent who abandons or intentionally fails to provide support during their child’s lifetime to inherit from that child’s estate.   
Tags:

Divorce Law Podcast - # 7

no picture
The Divorce Law Podcast is a 10 episode series presented by Robert Durst, Shareholder and Chairperson of Stark & Stark's Divorce Law Group.  The series is constructed so that listeners may use it as an "owners manual" for their divorce. 

This seventh installment of the Divorce Law Podcast will focus on alternative dispute resolutions. This podcast will discuss the options you can address with your attorney in order to avoid an expensive and lengthy courtroom litigation, such as mediation, arbitration or early settlement proceedings.

You can download the seventh installment here. (4.2 MB)

Episode 7 Show Notes (PDF)
Tags:

What are your views on eminent domain?

no picture
Timothy P. Duggan, Chair and Shareholder of Stark & Stark's Condemnation group, was the guest commentator on GlobeSt.com's website in response to the question, What are your views on eminent domain? GlobeSt.com is a real estate website providing news alerts, discussion forums and real estate related resources to cities across the nation.

In his response, Mr. Duggan discusses the various issues that make eminent domain such a controversial subject, including, the different types of redevelopment, relocation benefits, and the need for adequate compensation.

You can read Mr. Duggan's full response here.

Divorce Law Podcast - # 6

no picture
The Divorce Law Podcast is a 10 episode series presented by Robert Durst, Shareholder and Chairperson of Stark & Stark's Divorce Law Group.  The series is constructed so that listeners may use it as an "owners manual" for their divorce. 

This sixth installment of the Divorce Law Podcast will focus on discovery. Discovery is a second step, and a more formal way, of gathering information relevant to your divorce proceedings. This podcast will discuss the various types of discovery proceedings, as well as some reasons why you may want to consider a formal discovery process with your attorney.

You can download the sixth installment here. (3.8 MB)

Episode 6 Show Notes
(PDF)
Tags: