The Railroad Retirement Act: Tier II Benefits

no picture

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


Tier II benefits are based solely upon railroad industry service and earnings (i.e. it does not take years/earnings outside of industry employment into account, unlike Tier I benefits).  Tier II benefits are calculated under section 3(B) of the RRA.  Tier II annuity benefits are divisible as property.  Moreover, of all RRA annuity components, Tier II benefits are the only benefits that may continue to be paid to a former spouse after the death of the employee.


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:

Stark & Stark Attorney to Present New Jersey Organization and Sale of Small Business Seminar

no picture

Adam J. Siegelheim, member of Stark & Stark’s Business & Corporate and Franchise Groups, will participate as a panelist at the 2009 New Jersey Organization and Sale of Small Business seminar, as part of the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s Skills & Methods Course. The seminar will take place Wednesday September 16, 2009 from 6:00 – 10: 00 PM at the Grand Versailles Quality Inn in Maple Shade, New Jersey.

For almost 50 years, the Skills and Methods Course, a nationally renowned “bridge the gap” program, has helped prepare thousands of attorneys for the transition from either law school to practice, or practice in other states to practice in New Jersey. Mr. Siegelheim will join with other attorneys from the state of New Jersey in presenting the New Jersey Organization and Sale of Small Business seminar. You can access additional information on the Skills & Methods Course offered by the NJICLE online here.

Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Sarkozy's Threat to Shun US Bankers

no picture

Thomas B. Lewis, Chair of Stark & Stark’s Employment Group was quoted in the Bloomberg.com article, Sarkozy Threat to Shun Banks on Pay Draws U.S. Alarm. The article discusses the tough rounds of questioning Citigroup Inc. and six other bailed-out companies’ are undergoing by the government on how they compensate top-paid executives and the plan from French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, to shun bankers who don’t accept pay limits.
 

Mr. Lewis states, “This is a good way for the corporation to save face if it’s challenged by the government, being able to say we looked into this and took this into consideration. It’s probably only going to come into play with the very high- wage earners.”

 

You can read the full article online here.

Contesting a Will - State Court or Federal Court

no picture

Lawsuits over the validity of a Last Will and Testament have become a common form of litigation around the country, as well as in the State of New Jersey.  Preparing an estate plan is something that is necessary and something that everyone should take care of while they are in an appropriate physical and mental state.   However, there are no rules as to when estate planning must be done.   Some individuals plan their estates well in advance.  Others wait until the last minute.  Some make sure that they frequently update their estate plans.  Others ignore what has to be done.  The result of late planning is often litigation.


In addition to the act of getting estate planning done, many other factors play into the fact that so many probate estates end up in litigation.  As families grow away from each other, natural suspicions arise.  Did someone influence the preparation of the Will?  Was the maker of the Will competent?  How were the assets divided?  How long was the marriage?  The questions are virtually endless.


In a recent case decided in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the Federal District had to decide whether there was appropriate subject matter jurisdiction for the Federal District Court to hear probate matters.  In the matter of Berman v. Berman, 2009 WL 1617758 (D. N.J.) the case involved allegations of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity to execute a Will, among other claims.   The plaintiff filed the case in the New Jersey State Court, Probate Division and the defendant removed the case to the Federal District Court.  The central issue for consideration was whether the Federal District Court could hear the dispute between the parties, which included probate issues.


The Federal District Judge noted that the United States Supreme Court had recognized a "probate exception" to otherwise proper federal jurisdiction.  Accordingly, when a case may otherwise qualify to be heard in Federal Court, the Federal Court would not have jurisdiction where the matter involved (1) the probate or annulment of a will; (2) administration of a decedent's estate; or (3) the assumption of jurisdiction of over property that was in the custody of the probate court.


Since the case in Berman involved questions of the validity of a Will, the Court determined that the "probate exception" applied and that the case had to be heard in the State Court.   The case was therefore remanded to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division.

Court Denies Motion By Defendants to Dismiss NuvaRing® Complaints

no picture

NuvaRing®, the combined contraceptive vaginal ring that is supposed to provide month-long birth control, is currently involved in a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  Plaintiffs have advanced claims that NuvaRing® is responsible for injuries in some individuals.

The Court recently denied a motion by Defendants to dismiss the Master Consolidated Complaint in the MDL.  On August 17, 2009, Defendants filed a motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal.  Defendants seek the Court’s permission to challenge the denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss.  In plain English, this means that Defendants are attempting to appeal in the middle of the ongoing case.  Defendants base their proposed appeal on the contention that the Court misapplied controlling precedent in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) and the standards found in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Iqbal is a recent case that made it easier for courts to dismiss a Plaintiff’s complaint.  If the Court allows an interlocutory appeal, it will probably significantly delay the proceedings. 

Stark & Stark Attorney to Present a How to Start a Business Seminar

no picture

Adam J. Siegelheim, member of Stark & Stark’s Business & Corporate and Franchise Groups, will present a seminar entitled, How to Start a Business, for the Greater Princeton Area SCORE. The seminar will be held Tuesday September 8, 2009 from 6:45 – 8:45 PM at the Princeton Public Library. Mr. Siegelheim will present the seminar along with Jack Armstrong, President of Franchise Network of New Jersey and CFO of FranNet LLC.


The seminar will discuss the pros and cons of three business startup options:  buying an existing business, purchasing a franchise, or building your own business.  It will also cover how to negotiate commercial leases and vendor contracts for maximum protection. 

 

To register for any of these seminars, send an email to info@scoreprinceton.org, or call SCORE at 609-393-0505.

Post- Judgment Tip: Changing Beneficiaries On Your Retirement Assets

no picture

You just paid off the balance of the bill to your attorney and you are feeling good  that your divorce is finally behind you.  The last thing on your mind is probably setting up an appointment with your Human Resources administrator to modify the beneficiary designations on your 401 (k) or employer-provided life insurance plan.
 

While I understand that the nuisance of going down to HR is sometimes as painful as a dentist visit, it is extremely important that you conduct this exercise as soon as possible after your divorce decree becomes final.
 

I say this because earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), failing to update your beneficiary designation with the plan administrator will enable a previously named beneficiary from getting their allotted portion of your hard earned pension, 401 (k) or life insurance proceeds. This ruling may seem like a hardline approach by the Court.  However, without a written change in beneficiary notification, the true intent of the deceased individual is difficult to prove. 
 

Under New Jersey law, during a pending litigation, an individual cannot modify their existing insurance or retirement account beneficiaries (assuming they are allotted to their spouse and children) until the entry of a Final Judgment of Divorce.  Being that retirement assets acquired during the marriage are more than likely subject to equitable distribution, their division is often identified in a Marital Settlement Agreement and a subsequent Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is entered to distribute the asset.  Identified distributions in the Marital Settlement Agreement will be protected against the payor’s estate if the payor dies before the allotted distribution.  However, a scenario could arise where the payor didn’t change his or her beneficiary designations before their death (post-judgment) and the ex-spouse will have a legitimate claim to receive their equitable distribution share, along with their designated beneficiary portion. 
 

Being that the changing your beneficiary designations immediately upon your divorce will not have an adverse impact on the ability to distribute the asset via a QDRO, there is no reason not to make this a top priority after your divorce becomes final.  Do whatever you have to do to remember to modify your beneficiaries-  make a mental note, write a reminder to yourself on a stick-it tab or hopefully your attorney will remind you at the conclusion of your matter.  Either way, do not let this important distinction fall by the wayside. A simple check of a box on a Human Resources form could have an enormous impact on your love ones’ futures.

Tags:

How Firm are Real Estate Contract Closing Dates?

no picture

Most contracts for the sale of real estate designate a date for the closing.  While buyers and sellers generally prepare to close on that date, it is not always possible.  Delays are not unusual and frequently reasonable under the circumstances.  So how definitive is the closing date in the contract?


Most contracts for the sale of real estate in the central and northern areas of New Jersey refer to the closing date as an “on or about” or “on or before” date.  This means that while the closing date has been agreed upon, neither party can legally require the other to actually close on that date.  The reason for providing flexibility in the closing date is due to the sometimes uncertain nature of the parties’ schedules, availability of buyers’ funds, lender delays, mover’s schedules, etc., etc., etc.


In order to avoid any unreasonable delay in closing, a specific written notice can be provided to the uncooperative party to set a firm and final date.  Generally, once the contract closing date has passed and all contingencies and conditions in the contract have been met or waived, either the buyer or the seller can make “time of the essence” by providing certain written notice to the other party setting a specific time, date and location for closing.  The time period given the other party of the “time of the essence” date must be reasonable under the circumstances.  (Generally, but not always, this is deemed to be 10-14 days).  While cooperation in agreeing upon a closing date is usually in both parties’ best interest, some situations require a unilateral enforcement of a closing date.  If the uncooperative party does not then close, they may be deemed in breach of the contract.


It should be noted that “South Jersey” contracts (generally those counties south of Mercer County) routinely provide for a “time of the essence” closing which would require the consent of both parties to change the closing date.


Effective as of July 30, 2009, lenders now have new requirements to provide certain disclosure notices to borrowers which may affect closing dates.   In 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act was passed to protect home borrowers from predatory lending practices and provide borrowers with disclosures regarding the cost of their loans in advance of closing.  Regulations were enacted which now require lenders to provide initial mortgage disclosures to a borrower seven (7) business days in advance of any closing.  If there is an increase of more the .125% in the Annual Percentage Rate, initially calculated, then a new disclosure statement must be provided to a buyer three (3) business days in advance of closing.  Thus, with these new regulations, it is possible that a closing date, even if agreed upon by all parties, may have to be delayed to comply with these new regulations.


Thus, both buyers and sellers should be aware from the outset that the closing date listed in a contract, may not be definitive and that all parties should remain flexible in determining a firm and final date.

Franchisors May Be Held Liable for the "Constructive Termination" of a Franchise

no picture

In a recent Appellate Court Decision, the New Jersey Court of Appeals has determined that a “constructive termination” of a franchise constitutes a violation of New Jersey’s Franchise Practices Act.  In Maintainco Inc. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift American, Inc., A-1485-07T2, the Appellate Division considered a situation where a franchisee learned from a customer that the franchisor had placed another franchisee (using a different platform concept) in the Plaintiff’s “area of proper responsibility.”  After learning of this development, the Plaintiff concluded that its franchise had been “constructively terminated” and sued for damages.  The Appellate Division agreed that constructive termination may constitute a violation of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act.  Also in the decision, was a holding that expert fees in this context are not allowable as damages under the Act.

Tags:

Stark & Stark Attorney Presents Seminar at the Community Association Institute's Senior Summit

no picture

Richard B. Linderman, member of Stark & Stark's Community Association group presented materials related to Active Adult and "Over 55" communities in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, during the Community Association Institute's Senior Summit held on August 11, 2009.  Mr. Linderman took questions and addressed concerns from owners and managers regarding issues and hot topics affecting Active Adult and senior associations.  Mr. Linderman spoke on issues ranging from how best to financially protect these communities, to dealing with problem owners, to providing advice on how board members can help carry out their duties and obligations.

A Few Things Everyone Should Know About Copyright Law

no picture

Copyright law is often the first and best line of defense against unauthorized reproduction of the products of the creative mind. As important as the law is to the work of so many firms, such as advertising agencies, software developers, artists and music publishers, it is a frequently misunderstood law. The following illustrations highlight a few of the important pillars of federal copyright law everyone should know:      


1. You recently wrote a scholarly article for a trade journal, and shortly after it was published discovered that a substantially similar article appeared in another journal.  Unfortunately, you never registered the work with the U.S. Copyright Office, nor did you put any copyright notice on the article.  Do you have any rights?

Yes.  Under the Copyright Act of 1909, copyright owners forfeited their rights when they failed to mark each copy of their work with a proper copyright notice (name, date and copyright symbol).  Under the 1976 and 1988 amendments to the statute, however, the formalities of the earlier law have been all but eliminated.  Now, for all works first published after March 1, 1989, no copyright notice is required to secure protection for the author (although it is still recommended and used widely).  Moreover, contrary to popular myth, registration affects only the enforceability, not the existence, of copyright.  Copyright arises upon creation of the work, and registration merely gives the author certain additional rights, such as the right to sue to enforce the copyright and the right to claim enhanced damages.

2.    You discover that someone first copied and sold your computer program ten years ago, and is continuing to infringe the work to this day.  Can you pursue such a claim even though it is so old? 
Yes.  Although the Copyright Act contains a three-year statute of limitations, most courts hold that either:

1) the statute does not begin to run until the date of the last act of infringement; or

2) the statute permits recovery of all damages occurring within the three-year period preceding suit, even if some acts of infringement occurred beyond that period. Therefore, you can probably still pursue much of the claim.

3. You are the owner of an advertising agency, and your creative director tells you that she had no idea that employees were making unauthorized use of copyrighted material for the benefit of the agency.  Is this a defense?
No. Innocent intent, good faith, or even subconscious copying are not defenses to copyright infringement.  Although it may have a great bearing on the issue of whether the infringement was willful (subjecting the company to enhanced damages), the copyright owner only needs to prove that unlawful copying occurred.  The company itself may be liable if it provided the means for its employees to commit the infringement, and had or should have had knowledge of the infringing activity (known under the law as “contributory” infringement), or if it had the right to control the employee's conduct and received a financial benefit from the infringement (known as “vicarious” infringement).
 

4. You have a great idea you want to copyright, and it involves a new system for processing customer orders.  You have written down your ideas in a concise document.  Will a copyright registration protect this idea?
 Probably Not. Unlike patents, copyrights do not protect ideas, only the expression of those ideas.  Moreover, the rights granted by Congress to copyright holders in the Copyright Act are not unlimited.  The statute grants a copyright holder certain exclusive rights, including:

1) the right to reproduce;

2) the right to prepare derivative works;

3) the right of public distribution;

4) the right of public performance; and

5) the right of public display. 

The Act does not give the owner a monopoly on the ideas embodied in the work, and in fact the statute is explicit in stating that "[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery...."  This is the famous "idea/expression" dichotomy of copyright law.   Therefore, even if you file a registration, the scope of protection may be quite limited. 

Stark & Stark Shareholder Comments on Berrien's Nomination as Head of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

no picture

Thomas B. Lewis, Chair of Stark & Stark's Employment Group, was quoted in the August 10, 2009 Human Resource Executive Online article, An EEOC under Berrien? The article discusses why companies should prepare for increased enforcement and litigation if Jacqueline Berrien is chosen to head the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While some fear stricter regulations are eminent for employers under a head who has past experience as a litigator, Mr. Lewis states that, "Her combined educational and practical experience working at the NAACP is a real plus for this position."


You can read the full article online here.

Court Dismisses Class Action Claims in NuvaRing® Litigation

no picture

In a recent blog post, it was reported that NuvaRing® plaintiffs had filed a master consolidated complaint in order to supplement the complaints in the individual NuvaRing® litigation cases. On May 19, 2009, the Court dismissed the class action claims in the Master Consolidated Complaint.  The Court noted that such claims are usually not appropriate for personal injury lawsuits based on pharmaceuticals.  However, the Court dismissed the claims without prejudice, which would allow Plaintiffs to reassert their rights to a class action, if such an assertion is appropriate at some time in the future.  This dismissal did not affect the substantive claims of Negligence, Fraud, and other causes of action. 

The Railroad Retirement Act: Tier I Benefits

no picture

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

 

Tier I annuity benefits are determined according to earnings and career service.  To qualify for Tier I benefits, an employee must have worked a minimum of ten (10) years in the railroad industry.  Tier I benefits become payable when the employee reaches the retirement age as established by the Social Security Act (SSA), or reaches the age of sixty (60) and has thirty (30) years of service.  Tier I annuity benefits are non-divisible and thus not subject to equitable distribution upon divorce.

 

Tier I annuity benefits represent the same benefit amount that the SSA would provide the employee upon retirement.  The Tier I component of an employee’s RRA annuity is calculated by applying the benefit formula of the SSA to the employee’s earnings record.  An employee’s earning record includes both rail industry earnings and any earnings from employment covered by the SSA.

 

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:

State Enforcement of the Bulk Sale Notification Requirements

no picture

As times are getting tougher for businesses, and the State of New Jersey is getting more hungry for tax revenues, we are seeing a crackdown by the State on enforcement of the bulk sale notification requirements.  The statute containing those requirements, N.J.S.A. 54:32B-22(c), provides as follows:
 

(c) Whenever a person required to collect tax shall make a sale, transfer, or assignment in bulk of any part or the whole of his business assets, otherwise than in the ordinary course of business, the purchaser, transferee or assignee shall at least 10 days before taking possession of the subject of said sale, transfer or assignment, or paying therefor, notify the director by registered mail of the proposed sale and of the price, terms and conditions thereof whether or not the seller, transferrer or assignor, has represented to, or informed the purchaser, transferee or assignee that he owes any tax pursuant to this act, and whether or not the purchaser, transferee, or assignee has knowledge that such taxes are owing, and whether any such taxes are in fact owing.
 

Whenever the purchaser, transferee or assignee shall fail to give notice to the director as required by the preceding paragraph, or whenever the director shall inform the purchaser, transferee or assignee that a possible claim for such tax or taxes exists, any sums of money, property or choses in action, or other consideration, which the purchaser, transferee or assignee is required to transfer over to the seller, transferrer or assignor shall be subject to a first priority right and lien for any such taxes theretofore or thereafter determined to be due from the seller, transferrer or assignor to the State, and the purchaser, transferee or assignee is forbidden to transfer to the seller, transferrer or assignor any such sums of money, property or choses in action to the extent of the amount of the State's claim. For failure to comply with the provisions of this section the purchaser, transferee or assignee, in addition to being subject to the liabilities and remedies imposed under the provisions of the uniform commercial code, Title 12A of the Revised Statutes of New Jersey, shall be personally liable for the payment to the State of any such taxes theretofore or thereafter determined to be due to the State from the seller, transferrer or assignor, and such liability may be assessed and enforced in the same manner as the liability for tax under this act."
 

In 1995, I co-wrote an article with my former colleague, Susan Inverso, entitled "What Secured Lenders Need to Know About Notice Requirements and Tax Liabilities Before Repossessing Personal Property"   This topic is becoming more relevant today, as more lenders are repossessing property and taxing authorities trying to make up shortfalls in State budgets by action to collect delinquent taxes.
 

The State of New Jersey has made clear that they intend that statute to apply not only to transfers of personal property, but also to real estate if the real estate is the principal asset of the seller. 
 

The statute also applies to any transfer, regardless of the dollar amount.  This means that even if the transfer is for no consideration, the buyer or transferee must comply with the bulk sale notification procedures.  If the seller owes taxes, either the seller or buyer must come up with the escrow amounts.  Otherwise, the buyer will be liable for the seller's state tax obligations. 
 

Before accepting the transfer of any property outside of the ordinary course of business, you should confirm that all requirements, such as the New Jersey Bulk Sale Transfer Notice requirements, are met, so that no unforeseen liabilities result from the transfer.

Is the Passage of Time a Significant Change In Circumstances Warranting a Modification of Child Support?

no picture

One of the most common questions that any divorce attorney will inevitably hear is “can my [spouse’s] child support obligation be modified?”  The prevailing case law in New Jersey since 1980 is that child support obligations are modifiable based on a substantial change in circumstances.  Specifically, if either party can show that a substantial change of circumstances has occurred since the last time support was calculated, a Court may either increase or decrease the obligor’s child support obligation as the situation dictates.
 

However, in 1995, the Court held in Doring v. Doring that child support orders are subject to review by a Court every three years.  In this decision, the Court relied upon a statue which required this automatic three year review.  This decision enabled a party who is unable to show that a substantial change in circumstances to apply for a recalculation of child support simply because three years has passed since child support was calculated. 
 

A Trial Court decision addressed the application of the Doring v. Doring decision today and, in a published decision, held that child support orders are not, in fact, subject to automatic court reviews every three years.  The Court reasoned that the statue upon which the Doring v. Doring decision was based was amended in 1998, years after the Doring decision.  The statute now states that child support orders should be reviewed at least once every three years, unless the State has devleoped an automated cost-of living adjustment program for child support payments.   Rule 5:6B was also adopted in 1998, which requires that all child support orders to be adjusted every to years to reflect the cost of living. 
 

Because New Jersey Child Support Orders are subject to cost of living adjustments every two years, the automatic three-year review set forth in Doring v. Doring is no longer necessary or appropriate. 

Tags:

NuvaRing® Plaintiffs File Master Consolidated Complaint

no picture

NuvaRing®, the once-a-month combined contraceptive vaginal ring which is supposed to  provide month-long birth control, is currently involved in a Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri based on claims that NuvaRing® is responsible for injuries in some individuals. 

On February 6, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a Master Consolidated Complaint (“Master Complaint”), which will serve to supplement the complaints in the individual cases.  The cases were originally filed in different state courts and transferred to the MDL.  The Master Complaint will make entry of cases into the MDL from around the country more efficient by allowing the incoming plaintiffs to simply refer to the Master Complaint.  This Master Complaint makes the necessary jurisdictional claims, as well as alleging a variety of counts for Negligence, Fraud, and other causes of action.

Financial Planning After 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 Sam Sacks, a Financial Advisor and First Vice President of Investments for Wells Fargo Advisors.
 

Mr. Eory and Mr. Sacks discuss the common questions many people face after a divorce in relation to their financial assets, such as where to invest, how do I find an advisor who suits my needs, and how to best invest my assets in today's economy?

Legal Briefs On Divorce: Financial Planning After Your Divorce from Stark & Stark on Vimeo.

New Home Warranty Program Fails to Deliver Results.... Again

no picture

A condominium association in Wildwood, NJ has had a crash course in the failure of the New Jersey New Home Warranty Act to protect the rights of New Jersey residents.  The condominium is being forced to watch their decks degrade and collapse before their eyes, while bureaucratic red tape and government inefficiency combine to create a disastrous situation for the unit owners.  The decks were improperly constructed, and as such, have experienced water intrusion that has caused decay, mold and even mushrooms to grow on the wood.  This has rendered them unusable.  After the problem came to light, and it became clear that the general contractor would not stand behind its work or the work of its subcontractors, the association looked to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for assistance under the New Home Warranty Program.  The DCA inspected the property and found that the construction was improper and that the decks were rotted beyond repair.  Under the New Home Warranty Program the DCA declared that the general contractor (who was unable to do the work properly the first time) had 30 days to draft and submit a plan of repair and 30 days after that to actually repair the property. 
 

The general contractor, not surprisingly, has attempted to place blame with the Township inspectors, who should have caught its inferior work during their routine inspections.  However, the general contractor knows full well that the responsibility of the Township inspectors is extremely limited, and they are surely not responsible for ensuring that the architectural plans or specifications are followed.  They are merely there to make a cursory review of the property and ensure that the work meets very minium requirements for safety.  They do not ensure quality workmanship.  That job, pursuant to the building code, is the general contractor's alone.  Their reliance on the Township inspectors is a transparent attempt to deflect the blame to someone else.  
 

The association has learned a difficult lesson that many across New Jersey have learned the hard way.  Because it chose to file a claim under the New Home Warranty Program, its fate is no longer in its own hands.  The DCA will decide on the scope of the repair, who does that repair and the cost at which the repair will be done.  The association has little, if any, input going forward.  If the association is not satisfied with the repairs suggested or eventually conducted, they are unable to appeal the decision in court.  Once a person or association files a claim under the New Home Warranty Program, they are prohibited from suing any of the parties responsible for those defects in New Jersey Superior Court.  The decision of the DCA (or the warranty company) is final and more often than not, the program favors builders and contractors over the homeowners.
 

Associations from Cape May to Bergen County, should be aware of their rights before filing a claim with the New Home Warranty Program.  In order to make a fully informed decision, the association should contact an attorney who is versed in the practice of construction in New Jersey and who knows condominium and homeowners association rules and regulations. For example, under the statute of repose in New Jersey, homeowners and condominium associations generally have 10 years from the date that construction is completed to sue the general contractor and its subcontractors for damages related to the construction.  Often times, depending on the type of damage that the association has incurred, the contractor's insurance policies can be source of recovery for the association.  This may provide a more complete recovery, a more favorable result for the association, and it will certainly provide the association more control over its destiny then they will receive by putting its fate in the hands of government officials who may not be completely interested in obtaining the most favorable result for the association. 

StarK & Stark Shareholders Author Article for the Charles Schwab Institutional Compliance Review

no picture

Thomas D. Giachetti, Chair of Stark & Stark's Securities group and Henry E. Van Blunk, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Business & Corporate group authored an article for the July 2009 edition of the Charles Schwab Institutional Compliance Review entitled An Overview of External Transition Planning for the Registered Investment Adviser.

The article discusses how important it is for advisers to implement a succession plan for their firm in order to prepare for possible transitions in the future. Mr. Van Blunk and Mr. Giachetti state that due to the current economic climate, implementing a successful succession plan is even more crucial to the future success of a business.

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

Post-Judgment Motions To Modify Support in a Poor Economy

no picture

Maria P. Imbalzano, Shareholder in Stark & Stark’s Divorce group, authored the article, Post-Judgment Motions To Modify Support in a Poor Economy for the July 27, 2009 edition of the New Jersey Law Journal. The article discusses the fact that while divorce filings in recent months are down,  there has been a rise in post-judgment applications being made in the wake of the recent economic downturn and rise in the unemployment rate. Ms. Imbalzano discusses the circumstances which surround the potential modification of judgments such as the interests of the children and how long the support obligations should be modified.

You can read the full article here. (PDF)
 

Tags: