Stark & Stark Shareholder Presents to the New York Association of Realty Managers

no picture

Stephen M. Lasser, a Partner in Stark & Stark's Condominium and Co-op group, was one of six speakers on a panel of distinguished lawyers and insurance professionals during the morning session of the Ethics Day Seminar sponsored by the New York Association of Realty Managers (NYARM) held July 22, 2009.  Over 60 property managers and real estate professionals attended Mr. Lasser's portion of this educational program held at Tavern on the Green in Manhattan.


Mr. Lasser and the other panelists discussed legal and ethical issues property managers and boards face concerning Directors and Officers (D & O) liability and insurance coverage.  Topics covered during this round table discussion included the amounts and types of D & O insurance coverage available, typical claims such as discrimination claims and practical and legal solutions to common pitfalls faced by property managers and boards.  Mr. Lasser discussed the NY Business Judgment Rule and how it protects property managers and boards in addition to D & O insurance.  After the presentations, there were discussions with the audience the panelists and an extensive question and answer session at the end of the seminar, which was followed by more informal discussions at a coffee and cocktail reception immediately after.

Strategies & Issues Associated with Bank and Mortgage Company Unit Owners Failing and/or Refusing to Pay Association Assessments

no picture

As more and more residential mortgages go into default, and then into foreclosure, more and more units within associations are owed by banks and/or mortgage companies.  In New Jersey, once a unit is sold, including by virtue of a sheriff's sale, the purchaser is liable for all assessments and fees going forward.  Before that, absent some atypical equitable circumstances, a bank that holds or services a mortgage on which an owner has defaulted does not owe assessments.    In New Jersey, a foreclosure from filing to sheriff's sale, can take anywhere between 18 and 24 months now.  Evidence reveals that banks are adding to these situation by delaying their foreclosure efforts - in order to avoid the sheriff's sale by which those banks will then become obligated to pay regular, ongoing assessments.  In the past, associations burdened with delinquent owners had a light at the end of the tunnel (Units in default with respect to their mortgages are typically in default in the payment of assessments) - the bank's sheriff's sale at least meant that regular assessments with respect to that unit would start coming in.  Banks would rather avoid taking on additional non-performing assets with no equity, with respect to which they would also have to begin paying monthly assessments and other costs.  This has forced associations to continue their own foreclosures and/or collection actions as there is absolutely no certainty that the bank holding or servicing the relevant mortgage will even finish its foreclosure, take title and begin paying assessments.  These association efforts include their own foreclosures and rent receiverships.

 

The overall economy, banking and mortgage system trouble and the overall real estate market has also resulted in units that have become owned by banks, etc. but that are not paying regular assessments.  Some of this stems from the fact that it is not always clear who is legally responsible for the payment of those assessments.  During the "housing boom" of the past several years, mortgages were widely originated by a lender and then sold to a Wall Street firm, which "pooled" the mortgage with others to create a mortgage-backed security that was sold in pieces to investors.  Mortgage-servicing companies, which typically are units of banks, are hired to collect the mortgage payments from homeowners and distribute the proceeds to the various investors.  Servicing companies argue it is the bank that must pay the ongoing assessments.  The bank, obviously, argues otherwise.  Associations can take advantage of this - or at least mitigate the negative consequences of it - by aggressively targeting all post sheriff's sale units, liening them and then foreclosing on them thereafter.  These units will typically be free and clear of other liens and/or judgments and thus are attractive targets.  Further, the units are typically vacant such that during the pendency of the association's foreclosure against the bank's unit, the association can seek a rent receivership by which a tenant can be placed; one that will pay monthly rent of any market-set amount during the pendency of the foreclosure.
 

Associations burdened with a ever increasing number of delinquent owners but continue to be vigilant in order to minimize the impact to the other owners.  Boards should be aggressive, creative and realistic when addressing the actions and/or inactions of banks that hold or service mortgages in their associations.

Possible Certification & Registration Requirement For Cooperative & Condominium Property Managers

no picture

Currently alive in New York's Assembly is A07388, which is a proposed amendment to New York's Real Property Law.  If enacted, all residential real property managers and any firm employing, contracting with or contracting to provide a property manager would be required to file a registration statement with New York's Secretary of State and be certified by an approved certifying organization.  The proposed law would permit New York to collection $50 for "each filing" and require a registration filing every two (2) years.  Interestingly, if enacted, the law would compel the "turning over of all property records within then days upon cessation of performing realty management, except funds and records requiring bank reconciliation which allows for 45 days."  If enacted, the law would also require property managers to disclose whether he or his principals have been convicted of crimes involving fraudulent practices or crimes arising out of their duties as a property manager.  The law would exempt however, any "property manager, or entity employing a property manager, if all the condominiums or cooperative units for which such property or entity performs services comprising less than 25 residential units."


For justification, the proposed law's drafters provide that in the "past, unscrupulous or untrained property managers have bilked cooperative shareholders of millions of dollars in elaborate schemes of fraud."  Other justifications are provided as well.  Stark & Stark's Condominium & Cooperative Group will continue to track this proposed law, as well as all of those that affect New York's condominiums and cooperatives.

Tags:

Bankruptcy Basics for Boards: Don't Leave Money on the Table

no picture

Collect Post-Petition Assessments from Chapter 13 Trustee in a Converted Chapter 7 Case

Bankruptcy filings around the country are up, due to among other things, the decline in the real estate market.  Previously, debtors used the equity in their home to fund a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan and pay back condominium, homeowners, and cooperative associations (“Associations”).  Now, many debtors no longer have any equity in their homes. As such, this is leading some Chapter 13 cases to be converted to Chapter 7 liquidation cases. 
 


For Associations, such a scenario often means that the debtor stops paying their post-petition assessments.  But what happens to all the money that the debtor paid the Chapter 13 Trustee during the  bankruptcy? Does this money get distributed to creditors, the debtor or does the Chapter 13 Trustee keep it?  And importantly, can the Associations get any of those funds back?

 

Opportunity to Recoup Post-Petition Assessments
During the life of a Chapter 13 case, the Chapter 13 Trustee has a duty to hold onto all plan payments made by the debtor.  Upon conversion to a Chapter 7 case, the Chapter 13 Trustee is required to account for these funds and notice creditors that these funds will be returned to the debtor. When this occurs, Associations have one last chance to get some or all of this money back, rather than letting the debtor get a windfall.
 


Questions for Associations to Ask Bankruptcy Counsel

It is imperative that the Associations take quick action and file opposition to the Chapter 13 trustee’s notice so it can possibly recoup these funds. Sometimes there may be a few thousand dollars held by the Chapter 13 Trustee. The Associations should talk with their bankruptcy attorney immediately.  Following are some questions to ask:

  1. How much is owed post-petition?  It is advisable for the Association to provide its attorney an account history for the post-petition fees due and owing.  For instance, if it will cost $500 to file an objection and make an appearance, but there is only $100 held by the Chapter 13 Trustee for a $200 post-petition claim, it may not be worth pursuing.                      
  2. Is there a consent order providing for an administrative claim?  There may be a consent order with the debtor providing for an administrative claim.  Bankruptcy Code §1326(a), specifically provides that the Chapter 13 Trustee is to pay all allowed administrative claims by such a consent order. 
  3.  Will an objection automatically mean allowance of the administrative claim?  The short answer is no.  The Associations still needs to prove the validity of the post-petition claim.  The debtor may assert a defense to the claim.  As such, sometimes the Associations may wish to negotiate with the debtor to avoid unnecessary litigation expenses.

These and many other issues should be addressed by your bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible.  Although the bankruptcy process is complex, thoughtful and sound legal advice throughout the bankruptcy case can help address many thorny issues that Associations regularly face as a creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding and, hopefully, not leave money on the table.

Case Management Conferences Held in NuvaRing® Litigation

no picture

In a recent blog post, Kevin Hart discussed the recent status of NuvaRing® litigation in Missouri. The cases in the Eastern District of Missouri are at the beginning of the discovery period.  A case management conference was held on July 21, 2009, where certain initial motions and conferences were discussed.  A case management conference was also held in Bergen County, New Jersey on June 5, 2009.  The cases, which are being managed together as a mass tort, are currently in the initial stages of discovery.  Plaintiff Fact Sheets are due August 1, 2009, and discovery should last at least through the end of 2009. 


Should you feel that you have suffered injury due to NuvaRing® use, the Stark & Stark Mass Tort/Pharmaceutical Litigation Team will be happy to review the circumstances of your NuvaRing® injury at no cost or obligation to you. Please fill out the form below for a free evaluation, or further information, from one of our experienced Mass Tort attorneys.

New Jersey Court Upholds Association's Right To Enforce Rules & Regulations

no picture

On June 19, 2009, the Hudson County Law Division upheld a Northern Jersey condominium association’s right to enforce its rules and regulations regarding the parking, registering, and towing of automobiles located within the association’s common elements.  The association had ratified a set of rules & regulations which had originally been drafted by its developer/sponsor. These rules were a supplement to the association’s master deed and bylaws, but were not contained within those documents.

 

In the present case, a unit owner (the “Owner”) had failed to properly maintain his vehicle and was in violation of association rules which required all automobiles to be moved at least once every 48 hours to prove that they were operational.  This car had a flat tire and had not been moved in over two (2) weeks.  The Association placed a notice of violation sticker on the car and two days later, had the vehicle towed.  The Owner failed to redeem the car from the towing company over several months and the vehicle was subsequently junked.  The Owner then filed a lawsuit against the association’s management company and the association seeking recovery of the value of the towed/junked car.  The Association countersued to enforce its governing documents and the specific rules & regulations violated by the Owner.

 

After a trial and the hearing of witnesses presented by both sides, the Court ruled that the association had the right to enforce its rules & regulations.  The Court recognized that the association’s board of trustees had the authority to draft and adopt reasonable rules and regulations which governed and limited a unit owner’s use of the common elements and areas.

 

Additionally, the Court found that the Owner’s attempt to sue the management company was essentially an attempt to circumvent the rules & regulations and governing documents, and therefore the Association was entitled to a recovery of its attorney’s fees and legal costs.  At the end of the day, the Association was vindicated and the Owner was held responsible to pay the association’s legal fees and costs incurred to both defend itself and its management company, and enforce its rules & regulations. 

Stark & Stark Attorney Elected to Lester A. Drenk Behavioral Health Center Board of Trustees

no picture

 Mark M. Wiechnik, has been elected to the Board of Trustees of the Lester A. Drenk Behavioral Health Center.  The Drenk Center is a private, non-profit organization headquartered in Hainesport, New Jersey. With sites throughout the state it offers behavioral health services for both children and adults including prevention programs, emergency crisis intervention, outpatient therapy, psychiatric services, residential programs, and case management services.

Mr. Wiechnik is an Associate and member of Stark & Stark’s Community Associations group where he focuses his practice in community associations law and construction litigation. He concentrates on advising community associations on matters including the creation and enforcement of restrictive covenants and regulations, developer transition, fair housing compliance and litigation arising from construction defects and contractor service agreements.
 

Governor Corzine To Sign Economic Stimulus Act of 2009

no picture

This week Governor Corzine is scheduled to sign the Economic Stimulus Act of 2009. Amongst other things, the bill will exempt projects receiving preliminary approval from the municipal board by July 1, 2010 from the non-residential development, i.e., COAH, fee. The bill also has a provision for a partial refund of such COAH fees paid under bill A-500 (the 2.5%), but only gives a party 120 days from the bill's effective date to make application for the refund. The bill will also provide economic redevelopment and growth grants (ERGG) in certain areas and will expand the eligibility for Urban Transit Hubs to add a mixed-use component that can receive a tax credit.
 

Act to further limit Homeowner Associations ability to enforce restrictions

no picture

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the "Act"),  which recently passed the U.S. House, contains certain provisions that restrict homeowners associations from prohibiting the use of solar energy systems.  Many associations contain certain restrictions, the enforcement of which has either been given to a board of trustees via a master declaration, or to the surrounding homeowners via a deed restriction and/or neighborhood scheme.  However, the Act (also known as the Waxman-Markey Act) prohibits associations from any action "that impairs the installation, construction, maintenance or use of solar energy systems."  New Jersey has already addressed this issue by way of N.J.S.A. 45:22A-48.2 which limits the Associations powers to regulating the qualifications of installation personnel, solar collector location, concealment and size.  However, if the Act becomes law, as written, it may supersede current statutes and could further curtail the restrictions that associations may impose upon its owners. 
 
 

It is important to note that this legislation does not affect the rights and responsibilities of condominium owners and boards pursuant to the New Jersey Condominium Act.  In most, if not all condominiums the roofs are designated as common elements or common property.  Therefore, the decision to install solar collectors on the roof of a condominium would have to be made solely by the condominium association’s. 

The Railroad Retirement Act: An Introduction to the Act

no picture

This is the first installment of a six-part blog series focused on the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA). You can read the full series here.

 

The Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) is a federal statute that provides unique benefits for railroad workers.  The 1974 Amendment to the RRA resulted in an annuity benefit system that is comprised of two main benefit components, generally referred to as Tier I and Tier II benefits.  In addition, railroad employees may qualify for additional annuity components (which are described below).  Under the RRA, railroad employees and employers pay taxes under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA), which are in lieu of, but similar to FICA contributions.

 

A railroad employee’s monthly annuity rate is computed  based upon length of service and earnings during their employment.  As a result, an RRA annuity cannot be segregated, nor can a separate account be established, as property to a former spouse.  (Note: an order dividing an employee’s “account” instead of “retirement annuity” is not valid under the RRA).  Moreover, the RRB cannot furnish the present value of future benefits although an estimate can be computed based upon an employee’s service and earnings.   However, the RRB does issue annual statements (BA-6 Forms) that reflect the employee’s creditable railroad service and compensation.

 

If you or your spouse have been railroad employees and thus may be eligible for a RRA annuity, it is strongly recommended that you speak to a legal professional to ensure that these unique benefits are properly accounted for and distributed incident to a divorce.

Tags:

Post-Divorce Matters: Weighing Your Options

no picture

You just caught your breath from your divorce litigation, the house is sold, custody has been decided, the investment accounts have been divided, you have just removed your attorney from your speed dial and the fighting has stopped–or has it?    
 

So now what? The divorce has been over for some time, but there are still outstanding issues you would like resolved between you and your ex-spouse, but you really do not know if you are prepared emotionally and financially to invest more time into litigating additional issues.           
 

Many individuals find themselves in this place a couple years out from their final divorce decree.  Maybe a child is getting ready to attend college and you have a feeling that your ex-spouse is not going to live up to their end of the agreed upon payment allocation.  The parent who has custody of the children has decided to relocate the children to another state.  Or maybe it is even something smaller – should you pay to fight your former husband/wife because they have not provided you with updated life insurance information to cover your support payments?   
 

What are the best steps to weigh the decision to litigate additional issues that may arise after the final divorce decree is signed?
 

My best piece of advice is to meet with an attorney when you first identify a possible post-judgment issue.  Don’t wait until your ex-spouse has missed nine straight weeks of support. When you see a pattern developing, reach out to an experienced attorney for advice.  At this initial meeting, your attorney will be able to spell out the advantages and disadvantages both financially and time-wise in litigating the matter to a final result.  At this point, you will have a better understanding of your rights and can make an informed decision whether or not to move on with a filing.       
 

Make sure your attorney gives you a possible range of a budget that you can expect the entire motion and any necessary additional court appearances will cost you before making the decision to go forward. If your attorney skirts the issue of providing a budget to you, you may not want to hire that person. Most attorneys can give you a reasonable budget estimate of the costs to address and resolve your post-divorce judgment issue.
 

I state this because the costs involved in the filing of a motion to enforce the provision of a divorce settlement agreement which requires the other party to pay support or alimony by a certain date will be cheaper to resolve than a motion for permission to relocate to another state with the children where it might be necessary to hire custody experts.  Also, the filing of a motion may truly be cost-prohibitive in connection to the relief you are requesting.  For example, if your former spouse owes you $750.00 in past child support arrears, it does not make financial sense to spend $3,500.00 in counsel fees to track this money down.  I often advise my clients to hold off on the possible filing until the “ends justify the means”.
 

The second and often more important concern is the issue of time. Your attorney should be able to give you a fairly accurate estimate as to the amount of time it will take your issue to be resolved from the filing of the initial application to its ultimate resolution.  Do you and your family have the emotional strength and patience to move forward with a litigation that may take many months to decide?
 

Sometimes the timing and expense estimates will need to be modified as your case progresses. For example, your post-judgment motion might be one you believe could be easily decided by the Court on motion day but instead of issuing an order resolving the issue, the Court would like further disclosure of information from the parties before rendering a decision so it instead issues a discovery order and reschedules a court date three months from the initial court date.  Also, you have opened up the door to your former spouse to make a claim against you.  Make sure you have been compliant with your obligations under your agreement.  You have be prepared both financially and emotionally to be able to adapt to these modifications and weigh the possibility of these modifications with your attorney when making the decision to bring your post-divorce judgment application.  As always, make sure to contact an attorney that focuses their practice in matrimonial law to fully weigh your options.

Tags:

Update on NuvaRing® Litigation Status

no picture

NuvaRing® is marketed as a once-a-month, combined contraceptive vaginal ring that provides month-long birth control.   It is sold in the United States by Organon USA Inc., a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Roseland, New Jersey, and Organon International, Inc., headquartered in the Netherlands. Its parent company, Schering-Plough Corp., is located in Kenilworth, New Jersey.  Complaints have alleged that hormone levels in NuvaRing® have resulted in death, the breakdown of tissue and organs, amputation, heart attacks, ischemic strokes, and deep vein thrombosis. 

 

Courts in the United States have consolidated NuvaRing® claims in two locations:  1) New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Civil Part, Bergen County Vicinage; and 2) the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  As of July 1, 2009, there have been 79 cases filed in new Jersey Superior Court and more than one hundred in the Eastern District of Missouri.
 

Squeeze-Out Technique: Withholding Information

no picture

Many times a majority shareholder seeking to squeeze-out a minority shareholder will deliberately withhold information relating to the closely held corporation. Withholding information is usually coupled with another form of oppression. The reason for the same is by leaving the minority shareholder in the dark about the status of the corporations and the actions of its officers and directors the minority shareholder will be unaware of the other forms of oppression. For example, a majority shareholder may award herself an excessive salary without disclosing that it or the underlying financial data which would reveal the excessive nature of the salary.  By keeping the minority shareholder in the dark she will more often than not be in a position to complaint about it.
 

Unfortunately, unlike publicly traded companies which have disclosure and reporting requirements pursuant to federal securities laws, shareholders in a closely held corporation do not have such broad disclosure requirements. Nevertheless, state courts have recognized that a person who owns shares in a closely held company is a part owner of that company who is entitled for participation of their interest, to information about the company.  The problem is Courts differ on what shareholders are entitled to receive under their state’s laws and what obligations corporate managers have affirmatively to supply information.
 

The New Jersey legislature granted shareholders a statutory right to inspect the corporation’s books and financial records. N.J.S.A. 14A:5-28.  It is well settled law in New Jersey that a shareholder has the right to inspect the books and records of the corporation if “he is acting in good faith and for some purpose germane to his status or interest as a shareholder.”  Pilat v. Broach Systems, 108 N.J. Super. 88, 94 (Law Div. 1969).   Hence, unless bad faith is shown, New Jersey Courts will order the production of financial records.

Credit Card Reform - What Does It Mean?

no picture

Timothy P. Duggan, Shareholder and Chair of Stark & Stark's Bankruptcy & Creditor's Rights group, authored the article, Credit Card Reform - What Does It Mean?, for the July 2009 edition of Mercer Business Magazine.

 

The article discusses the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act which was signed by President Barack Obama in May of 2009. The Act mandates specific reforms to the credit card industry in an attempt to curb the abuse by certain credit card companies while at the same time allowing financial institutions the ability to price credit against risk. You can read the full article online here. (PDF)

Tax Credit for First Time Home Buyers

no picture

Would you like to have a federal tax credit of $8,000 simply because you purchased a home this year?  As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a tax credit equal to 10% of the purchase price of a home, up to a maximum of $8,000, is available to certain first-time home buyers who purchase a main residence on or after January 1 and before December 1, 2009.   First-time home buyers who purchased their main home in 2008 are entitled to a credit of up to $7500. This article is limited to a discussion of the credit available for 2009 purchases.
 

Who is entitled to such a credit?  First-time home buyers are if  purchasing a main home, i.e., principal residence, whether it is a house - new or resale - mobile home, condominium, cooperative apartment, etc.  The purchase must occur on or after January 1, 2009 and before December 1, 2009.  The purchase date is the closing date, when title transfers to the buyer.  For someone who is constructing their main home (not buying it from a home builder), the purchase date is the date you first occupy it. 


Who qualifies as a first-time home buyer?  You (and your spouse, if married) must not have owned another main home during the 3-year period immediately preceding the closing date of your qualifying purchase.  If you or your spouse owned a main home during the three preceding years, then neither will qualify for the credit.
 

Are there income limits?  Yes, your modified adjusted gross income must be less than $95,000, if  single, or less than $170,000, if married filing jointly. You are allowed the full amount of the credit, i.e., $8,000,  if your modified adjusted gross income is $75,000 or less, if single, and $150,000 or less, if married filing jointly.  Between these two income levels, the credit is phased out at the higher income levels.


This credit is not available to nonresident aliens, or for homes located outside the United States, for  homes acquired by gift or inheritance, or those acquired from a related person.  The IRS defines a related person for this credit to be: your spouse, ancestors (parents, grandparents, etc.) or lineal descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.); a corporation in which one of the buyers owns more than 50% in value of the outstanding stock of the corporation; or a partnership in which you own more than 50% of the capital interests or profits interest.
 

For 2009 purchases, if the home ceases to be your main home within 36 months of the closing date, you must repay the credit by including it as additional tax in your return for the year the home ceases to be your main home.  There are some exceptions to your obligation to repay the credit.   If you sell the home to an unrelated party, the repayment is limited to the amount of gain on the resale.  If the home is destroyed, condemned or disposed of under threat of condemnation,  you will have two years to acquire a new home to avoid repayment of the credit.  If as part of a divorce settlement, the home is transferred to one of the spouses, the  spouse receiving full title is responsible for any repayment the credit.  Repayment is not required if you die; however your surviving spouse may be required to repay his or her half of the credit.
 

To qualify for the credit, complete IRS Form 5405 and claim your credit amount on your 1040 return.  If your credit exceeds your tax liability, the IRS will refund you the difference.

Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Feeder Funds Ruling

no picture

Stark & Stark Securities group Shareholder, Bill Singer, was quoted in the July 16, 2009 New Jersey Law Journal article, Feeder Funds Held Subject to Commodity Pool Regulation. The article discusses Monday’s U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which states, “A fund that solicits money from investors for trading in commodity futures is subject to registration and regulation as a commodity pool operator, even if it does no trading itself.”

 

The ruling comes shortly after the sentencing of Bernard Madoff who stole over $50 billion from investors during his decade-long Ponzi scheme and could now have repercussions in similar suits against other “feeder funds.”

 

Mr. Singer states that this case could help to lay the foundation for future actions against feeder funds, even those which were involved in the Madoff scam. Mr. Singer also states that the ruling brings to light the need for Congress to update commodities and securities laws in order to keep up with the changing markets. 

 

You can read the full article here. (PDF)

Stark & Stark Shareholder to Present at NJICLE Non-Compete Seminar

no picture

Thomas B. Lewis, Chair of Stark & Stark’s Employment group, will serve as a speaker at the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s seminar entitled, Current Issues Involving Non-Compete Agreements, Protection of Trade Secrets and the Duty of Loyalty. The seminar will be held October 1, 2009 at the DoubleTree Guest Suites Hotel in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey from 4:30 - 8:00 PM.

 

The seminar will address the benefits provided by non-compete agreements. The seminar will discuss how non-compete agreements serve a vital role for employers and how agreements, policies and sound practices can be implemented in order to protect a business’s intellectual property and proprietary information, as well as how to deal with a key employee when their employment relationship dissolves.


The seminar will provide strategies on how to implement non-competes and other restrictive covenants, such as:

  • Purpose of non compete agreements; protecting employer trade secrets and confidential information
  • New Jersey’s view regarding non-compete covenants
  • Drafting the enforceable agreement: restricted conduct; geographic area covered, duration of the restriction, reasonableness, public policy issues related to corporate liability as well as individual liability
  • Duty of loyalty by the employee to the employer
  • Breaching the restrictive covenant; theft of trade secrets
  • Employer’s recourse for a breach or theft
  • What the former employee can anticipate
  • Litigation issues: establishing a claim; remedies; damages
  • Recent case law
  • Judicial perspective

You can access additional seminar information online here.

Death During Divorce Proceedings

no picture

Usually, when a spouse dies in the midst of divorce litigation, significant problems arise.  The first is that upon the death of a spouse  prior to entry of Final Judgment effectively terminates the divorce proceedings.  See Carr v. Carr, 120 N.J. 336, 339 - 340 (1990). Thus, any right of the surviving spouse to equitable distribution under the divorce statute is extinguished.  The result is that the surviving spouse is left to pursue his or her share of the marital assets through the probate code by way of exercise of elective share if he or she has been disinherited or the decedent was intestate. 

 

The second problem arises in that the probate code explicitly denies the election share option to a surviving spouse if: (a) at the time of death the decedent and surviving spouse were living separate and apart in separate habitations; or (b) the decedent and surviving spouse had ceased to cohabit as man and wife as a result of circumstances that would give rise to a cause of action for divorce in New Jersey. N.J.S.A. 3B:8-1.  Thus, the surviving spouse is left to pursue relief by way of a constructive trust under quasi-contractual law, which may be established by the Court as a vehicle by which equity may be accomplished.

 

If your spouse or civil union partner should pre-decease you immediately preceding the commencement of divorce/dissolution litigation or in the midst thereof, it is strongly advised that you seek the advise of an attorney to ensure that your property rights are upheld and you receive proper distribution of the marital assets.

Tags:

Stark & Stark Condominium Client Places into Rent Receivership an Affordable Housing Unit in Foreclosure

no picture

A Stark & Stark Community Association Group client recently defeated both the related municipality and unit's mortgagee and put an affordable housing unit into rent receivership.  The condominium unit in question was abandoned by the owner; a low income woman who had qualified for the purchase of an affordable housing unit, as governed by New Jersey's Fair Housing Act and Council on Affordable Housing ("COAH").  Both the condominium and the condominium unit's mortgagee, Mortgage Lenders Network Home Equity Loan Trust (the "Bank") had filed separate foreclosure complaints against the owner.  The condominium's foreclosure was completed first, with a judgment entered (the Bank having not yet secured a foreclosure judgment).  Once the condominium learned that the owner had abandoned the unit, it filed a motion seeking the appointment of a rent receiver.  The rent receiver, the condominium hoped, would identify and install a tenant, who would then pay monthly rent to the condominium, in an effort to offset the amounts in assessments, left unpaid by the owner.


The municipality opposed the condominium's motion arguing that the installation of a tenant would slow its attempts to ensure the unit's ultimate ownership by a low or moderate income family.  Thus, the municipality argued, the unit should remain vacant until the Bank's sheriff's sale and ultimate purchase by the municipality.  The Bank opposed the motion arguing that the installation of a tenant would slow its efforts to complete its foreclosure and sheriff's sale and that, if there is to be rent receiver, the Bank and not the condominium should be the recipient of the funds.


The condominium countered that it was and remains wholly inequitable for the condominium and its middle class neighbors to preserve this asset valued so highly by the municipality (it must ensure the continuation of this as an "affordable unit" to ensure compliance with COAH regulations) and the Bank (it intended to sell the unit after foreclosure for the amount of the unpaid mortgage, thereby recouping some of the  Bank's losses) without any contribution from the unit's owner, the municipality or the Bank.  Further, if the Bank was to be the beneficiary of the rent receivership, so be it, but then the Bank better start paying monthly assessments.


The court agreed with the condominium, ordering that a rent receivership be created.  She further ordered that the municipality to identify persons qualified under COAH regulations to reside in an affordable unit.  The Court ruled as well that the only way the Bank and/or the municipality could avoid the receivership and tenancy is if they pay the condominium's regular monthly fees.


The condominium's success here further illustrates how condominiums and associations must continue to be aggressive and creative to collect unpaid assessments and safeguard their rights during these difficult and challenging economic times.  For further information on associations and rent receiverships, or collections in general, please contact David J. Byrne, Esquire, Co-Chair of the Community Association Group.

Stark & Stark Blogs Featured in Mercer Business Magazine Article

no picture

Stark & Stark Shareholder, Timothy P. Duggan, and Directory of Business Development, Richard C. DeLuca, were featured in the July 2009 issue of Mercer Business Magazine in the article, Who Let the Blawgs Out?

The article discusses the recent rise in law firms who have taken to blogging as a result of their appeal as an inexpensive and effective marketing tool, and as a terrific way for presenting information on a wide range of legal matters to current and potential clients. Stark & Stark’s New Jersey Law Blog was noted as one of the most prolific blawgers in the state since its inception in 2004. Mr. DeLuca states, “Blogs are a way to stay in touch with our existing and potential client base. We’ve integrated all of our electronic communications—blogs, Website, e-mail, e-marketing—all into one package."

Stark & Stark Bankruptcy & Creditors’ Rights Shareholder, Timothy P. Duggan, was also quoted in the article as saying, “It’s interesting how people are finding lawyers and how many people are accustomed to throwing in names or ideas into Google. Today, people can find you in all different ways.”

You can read the full article online here. (PDF)

Recent Case Law Under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act

no picture

Michael J. Brittan, member of Stark & Stark’s Employment group, co-authored the article Recent Case Law Under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act: A Practical Review, for the June 2009 issue of the Privacy & Data Security Law Journal.

The article discusses the most recent case law relating to the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) and provides employers guidelines for complying with the EPPA. You can read the full article online here.
 

Recent Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Regulations Impact the Sale of Condominiums

no picture

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (along with the Federal Housing Administration) purchase or guarantee the vast majority of mortgages in this country.  Obviously then, any toughening of their lending standards could have a major impact on the housing market.  As we have seen over the past few years though, standards that are too lax could leave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with bad loans, ultimately becoming the responsibility of United States taxpayers.  In March, 2009, Fannie Mae advised that it would no longer guarantee mortgages on condominiums in associations where fewer than 70% of the units have been sold.  The previous percentage was 51%.  Fannie Mae also declared that it will not purchase mortgages in associations where 15% of the owners are delinquent in the payment of assessments, or where one (1) owners has more than 10% of the units.  Fannie Mae believes that these are evidence of an association that may soon have financial trouble.  It is expected that Freddie Mac will implement similar policies this July.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has also increased fees on mortgages for condominiums.  Prospective buyers without a minimum 25% down payment must pay closing-cost fees equal to 0.75% of their loan, regardless of their credit score (exceptions are pending with respect to cooperatives and detached condominiums).


There are caveats and/or exceptions to these policies and/or rules.  According to Fannie Mae, the 70% rule does not apply to loan applications suubmitted through an underwriting program used by major lenders.  Fannie Mae added that hundreds of projects submitted through that exception since March 1, 2009 have been approved even though their sales levels are below 70%.  Further, developers can seek exemptions with respect to loans that are manually underwritten. 


Debates in Congress are ongoing with respect to whether these policies ought to be further amended, as everyone continues to try to find the right balance between the need to facilitate the creation and purchase of housing, and the need to avoid another round of mortgages for individuals that cannot afford them.

Forensic Computer Investigations For Your Divorce

no picture

Legal Briefs On Divorce is a video podcast series providing viewers with a discussion on timely news and insight on current trends impacting divorce. This installment of Legal Briefs On Divorce is an interview with John S. Eory, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Divorce Group, and Rob Kleeger, Managing Director of the Intelligence Group.

 

Mr. Kleeger conducts digital forensic investigations for divorcing parties in order to gather electronically stored information and put it in a format useful to a divorce case. Mr. Eory and Mr. Kleeger discuss the reasons for digital forensic investigations and what type of information can be gathered for a divorce case.

Legal Briefs On Divorce With John Eory & Rob Kleeger from Stark & Stark on Vimeo.