Solar Ordinance Preemption Bill Comes Closer to Passage

no picture

On May 9, 2011, the Assembly passed Senate bill (S2006), which was substituted for its bill (A3125), by a vote of 64-10-2. The legislation, which we will also refer to here as the "solar ordinance preemption bill,” supplements the Municipal Land Use Law to limit municipal authority over the installation of photovoltaic solar energy systems on a residential property. Since the Senate had already passed A2006 last summer, this legislation now awaits action by Governor Christie. If approved and signed into law, the solar ordinance preemption bill will undoubtedly facilitate the installation of solar facilities on residential properties and encourage New Jersey homeowners to use renewable energy resources which, in turn, will promote the goals of the Energy Master Plan.

 

Tags:

Conflicting Loyalties: When corporate counsel should not represent a shareholder

no picture

Scott I. Unger, Shareholder in Stark & Stark’s Shareholder & Partner Dispute Group, authored the article, Conflicting Loyalties: When corporate counsel should not represent a shareholder, for the May 23, 2011 New Jersey Law Journal Complex Litigation & E-Discovery Supplement.

The article discusses the ethical mine field of general outside counsel representing one shareholder over another in a minority oppression case. Mr. Unger states that, often times, the general counsel will be retained by one shareholder to represent them in the minority oppression case, and sometimes, that choice could result in serious ethical problems. According to Mr. Unger, “General outside counsel should consider referring litigation between the shareholders to another attorney because of the potential for ethical issues. The article will touch on various Rules of Professional Conduct which needs to be considered before general outside counsel takes sides in a minority oppression case.”

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

Pending Legislation May Change Procedures for Adopted Persons When Locating Birth Parents

no picture

Under current New Jersey law, when a person is adopted, a new birth certificate is issued showing the name of the adopting parent(s) and the original birth certificate, as well as the adoption pleadings, are placed under seal.  As a result, an adopted person may not obtain the name(s) of their birth parents.

Pending legislation amends the current law and provides that an adopted person who is over 18, or the adoptive parent of a minor adopted person, may obtain the adopted person’s original birth certificate upon written, notarized request.

If the Governor signs this bill into law, I will provide more details concerning this legislation.

Tags:

Will a Judge Listen to My Child's Preferences Regarding Custody?

no picture

This question is very common for litigants involved in a custody or parenting time dispute. The New Jersey Court Rules specify that the Court may decide whether to conduct an interview of a child as part of a custody hearing. The request for the Court to conduct an interview may be made by a litigant. In addition, the Court may also decide to conduct an interview of a child, even if neither litigant requests an interview.


The Court rules further clarify that the decision whether to conduct an interview of a child or not rests within the sole discretion of the Family Court Judge, irrespective of the age of a child. This decision will only be disturbed if the Family Court Judge abused their discretion. 


The Court Rules require that the decision to conduct an interview shall be made before Trial. If the Court decides not to interview the child, they shall place the reasons for their decision on the record.  If the Court decides that they will interview the child, counsel for both parties shall be afforded the opportunity to submit questions for the Court’s use during that interview.  If the Court decides not to ask a question that has been submitted by either party, it shall place on the record the reason for not asking the question. A transcript must be made of each interview, and shall be provided to counsel and the parties upon request.


In a recent Unpublished Appellate Court Decision of Jannarone v. Jannorone, the Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision where the Trial Court declined to interview a 16 year old child.  In declining to interview the child, the Trial Court stated it “clearly prefers to involve the children as little as possible in these litigation issues” and “to interview her directly ... will not have so significant impact on the Court as to justify the turmoil and tribulation said interviewing process may have on the child.”


The Appellate Division looked to the case of  Macknowski v. Mackowski, where  the Appellate Division previously held that the “value of a properly conducted interview” of a 16 year-old child “outweighs the possibility of harm” that could result from that interview.  317 N.J. Super. 8, 14 (App. Div. 1998). The Appellate Division also looked to a Supreme Court decision which provided that “the family court would benefit from hearing the wishes of a child over the age of ten, who has reached a level of maturity that allows the child to form and express an intelligent opinion.”  N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. V. E.P., 196 N.J. 88, 113 (2008). 


In the case at hand, the Appellate Division ultimately found that the child was a well-adjusted honors student, who has never been in trouble. The Appellate Division also found that there was no reason to believe that the child could not cogently express her views. The Appellate Court reversed this decision, and concluded that the Court should have interviewed the child and considered her wishes. 


Although the Court Rules state that the decision to conduct an interview of a child in a custody proceeding rests within the discretion of the Trial Judge irrespective of the child’s age, it is clear that the age and maturity level of the child are critical factors the Court should consider in deciding whether to conduct in interview of the child.

Tags:

Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 Provides for Changes to Internal Revenue Code

no picture

On April 26, 2011, I posted a short article about the one-year extension of the grant in lieu of the tax credit allowed for certain expenditures relating to energy property specified under Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was effected by Section 707 of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (“Tax Relief Act”) enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President at the end of last year.  In addition to the aforesaid tax credit extension, the Tax Relief Act provides for other notable changes to the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”), which are the subject of this blog entry.


Under Section 401 of the Tax Relief Act, for example, Congress lengthened by two years the time period during which a taxpayer may receive a 50% bonus depreciation under the IRC’s accelerated cost recovery system regulations for the taxable year in which the taxpayer places any “qualified property” (as such term is defined by 26 U.S.C. § 168(k)) in service.  The term “qualified property” comprises a host of “energy property” (as such term is defined by 26 U.S.C. § 48( c)), including, for example, “combined heat and power system property” and “qualified small wind energy property.”  Section 401 of the Tax Relief Act also amends Section 168(k) of the IRC (1) to create a temporary provision that allows taxpayers to depreciate 100% of the adjusted basis of any “qualified property” acquired after September 8, 2010, and before January 1, 2012 (and, in some cases, January 1, 2013) and (2) to extend the time period during which a taxpayer may accelerate the alternative minimum tax (AMT) credit in lieu of bonus depreciation (and add special rules for taxpayers making this election).


Sections 709 and 710 of the Tax Relief Act, which respectively amend the Energy Efficient Appliance Credit (26 U.S.C. § 45M) and the Nonbusiness Energy Property Tax Credit (26 U.S.C. § 25C), merit some brief commentary, as well.  Respecting the former, the Tax Relief Act adds new tax credits for dishwashers, clothes washers and refrigerators that are manufactured in 2011 (all such prior tax credits having expired either in 2008, 2009 or 2010) and significantly reduces the aggregate amount that a taxpayer may take under the Energy Efficient Appliance Credit from $75,000,000 to $25,000,000 (although as a result of this amendment the starting point for measuring the aggregate amount was changed from taxable years beginning after December 31, “2007" to “2010").  Modifications to the Nonbusiness Energy Property Tax Credit effected by the Tax Relief Act were also substantial.  Among other changes, the Tax Relief Act (1) extends the Nonbusiness Energy Property Tax Credit through December 31, 2011, (2) reduces the allowable credit percentage from 30% of qualified energy efficiency improvements and residential energy property expenditures to 10% of all such costs and (3) institutes a number of credit limitations, such as the “Lifetime Limitation.”  Under the Lifetime Limitation, the amount a taxpayer may claim under the Nonbusiness Energy Property Tax Credit for any taxable year shall not exceed the excess of $500.00 over the aggregate credits allowed for all prior taxable years ending after December 31, 2005.


The foregoing discussion, along with my April 26th article, together provide a brief overview of some of the federal credit extensions and other tax law changes established by the Tax Relief Act.  A complete description of the entire Tax Relief Act is beyond the scope of this blog entry.  Please do not hesitate to contact my office to discuss in more detail any of the provisions highlighted above or any aspect of the Tax Relief Act that I have not addressed herein.

Tags:

2011 International Franchise Association's Legal Symposium Recap

no picture

Adam J. Siegelheim, member of Stark & Stark’s Franchise Group, was the featured guest on the May 19, 2011 Franchise Today Podcast Series. Mr. Siegelheim was joined by Paul Segreto, Franchise Today host, and Joe Caruso, Franchise Today Co-Producer, as they discussed the 2011 International Franchise Association’s Legal Symposium which was held recently in Washington, D.C.

You can listen to the full podcast online here.
 

Commercial Landowners Impetus to "Go Green"

no picture

In this newly invigorated economic climate, some landlords of commercial property may be reevaluating the potential long-term benefits of “greening” their space, like adding wind, solar, or  bio-mass facilities and/or renovating or building new structures pursuant to protocols like the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. Since generous government incentives continue to abound, there is no time like the present for constructing renewable energy facilities and/or undertaking energy-efficient improvements on-site.

Issues to Consider in “Greening” Commercial Space
In undertaking “green” improvements, care should be taken to anticipate and address both business and legal issues relative to the procurement of:

  1. financing;
  2. tax incentives; 
  3. construction agreements; and               
  4. leases with commercial tenants

Financial Incentives to Green Commercial Space
The Board of Public Utilities (BPU) through its Office of Clean Energy offers a host of financial incentives through the New Jersey Clean Energy Program. Among these is the Pay for Performance Program, which is funded by the societal benefits charge authorized by the New Jersey Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act.  Under this program, a qualifying utility customer may receive for the improvement of an existing building up to 50% of a facility’s annual energy cost (subject to a maximum of $50,000) to offset the cost an energy reduction plan and up to 50% of total project costs (subject to a maximum of $1 million per gas and electric account per building) provided that the implementation of the approved energy-efficient measures will achieve an energy savings of at least 15%.  

In the realm of renewable energy, the BPU offers New Jersey utility customers, who pay the societal benefits charge, access to the renewable energy certificate market and rebates for the installation of renewable energy systems, such as wind and sustainable biomass facilities at existing buildings and in connection with new construction located in Smart Growth areas (i.e. Planning Areas 1 and 2 and designated centers).

Planning is Key to Ensuring Profitability with Tenants
It is important to have a solid “green” plan in place, before seeking tenants to fill spaces in a renovated or newly constructed facility.  For example, a landlord may need to prepare and implement interior fit-out guidelines for incoming tenants to achieve and sustain energy efficiency goals and preserve building integrity.  Guidelines, such as these, might specify that construction in tenant spaces shall conform to the LEED protocols, contain product and material specifications, or require that tenants employ a construction manager who is a LEED accredited professional.

Proof of Parental Alienation Does Not Give Rise to Money Damages

no picture

In the recent case of Segal v. Lynch, 413 N.J. Super. 171 App. Div. 2010, it was held that a party is not entitled to money damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress when a parent intentionally alienates a child from the natural bond and affection that should exist with the other parent.  The Court’s reasoning was that this type of lawsuit would harm the child forcing them into the litigation through depositions, psychological examinations and having extended family brought in as witnesses.  The only exception is in cases where the conduct is so extreme and so outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.  Examples of this are when one parent falsely accuses the other of sexually abusing the child or where one parent unlawfully abducts the child.      

Tags:

Timing is Everything: The Paradox of the "Occurrence" in Coverage Litigation

no picture

Very few things in life are “cut and dried” and the interpretation of words used in insurance policies is certainly no exception. Insurance policies can be difficult to read and interpret, even for the most skilled reviewer. To make matters worse, even a diligent attempt to decipher the policy’s ever alluring “definitions” section may often prove a frustrating exercise.  Yet, despite the convoluted terms and phrases, like it or not, insurance is something most of us cannot afford to ignore or live without.  The question becomes, how do we manage our affairs in reliance upon what is a “covered” claim?
 

Unfortunately, in many cases, the Courts have not made the daunting task of policy interpretation any easier for the lay person.  Insurance policy terms are generally interpreted by the Courts in  favor of the insured, where a fair interpretation, based upon the policy language, may be made, in accordance with the reasonable expectations of a policy-holder.  However, as is evidenced by two recent Appellate Division decisions, it isn’t always that easy. Despite the tendency of most Courts to favor policy-holder friendly interpretations, legal principals often dictate a different result which may have significant effects for both the insured and any third parties seeking indemnification from an insured. 
 

The New Jersey Appellate Division recently reaffirmed the finding that an “occurrence” does  not actually take place when a wrongful act is committed, but, rather, when the complaining party is damaged.  Often times these may not be one and the same.  On the surface, this tends to defy logic, since many insureds may assume that an “occurrence” takes place (or “occurs”) when the offending party does something wrong, thereby causing harm.  However, in legal terms, the resulting damage is the basis for a recovery, and, hence, that is what ultimately matters.  This principal is evident in instances where a party is not actually damaged until he or she learns of the wrongful act and/or its effects.  Unfortunately, since this may be weeks, months or even years later, there can be substantial insurance coverage implications as a result.
 

The importance of damages was the focus of two rather morbid cases recently reviewed by the Appellate Division involving schemes to pilfer tissue and bone from corpses. In both Adams-Stiefel Funeral Home v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. A-0829-09 (March 10, 2011) and  Memorial Properties LLC v. Zurich American Insurance Co. No. A-0109-09 (March 10, 2011) the aggrieved family members were not alerted to the wrongdoing until years after it took place. Suits were ultimately filed, seeking damages for mental anguish and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, among other things. 
 

Both funeral homes had different insurance policies in effect when the wrongdoing occurred, as compared with when the family members ultimately found out about the wrongdoing.  In the end, the Court held that the insurance policies that were in effect when the wrongdoing occurred were not implicated, even though there likely would have been coverage available under those policies, because the damage or harm (mental anguish/emotional distress, etc.) did not occur until the family members became aware of what had happened. 

 

The Court also determined that the policies that were in effect when the family members were notified, although implicated, were not obligated to respond to cover the claims or offer defenses to the insured because of relevant policy exclusions. Ultimately, the accused parties were found to have had no insurance coverage to pay the claims and the victims thereby lost a viable source of recovery. 
 

It is impossible for the eventual victims of wrongdoing to anticipate every possible action of those with whom they conduct business.  Requiring proof of insurance coverage from parties with whom you do business and consulting an attorney to review contracts and explain your rights is prudent advice and may save you time and frustration down the road.  Additionally, insureds should make every effort to understand the terms of the insurance policies they purchase and should be mindful of coverage exclusions which could leave them footing the bill in the event of a loss or lawsuit. It is always good practice to have a professional review your policies and explain your rights.  

DePuy Pinnacle Hip Implant To Possibly Follow DePuy ASR MDL

no picture

DePuy Orthopaedics, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, has yet to issue a recall for its Pinnacle system.  However, similar to the recalled ASR models, there are concerns that the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System, also a metal-on-metal implant device, might have significant design defects leading to a higher than normal failure rate. DePuy has reportedly sold over 150,000 Pinnacle hip implant systems, largely outselling the ASR models.  As of last month, the FDA had received more than 1,300 “adverse events reports” with regard to the Pinnacle system.

In March 2011, a petition was filed to consolidate all federal DePuy Pinnacle cases in either the Southern District of Texas or the Central District of California.  Alternatively, the petition also asked that the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) consider adding the Pinnacle cases to the already pending DePuy ASR MDL, which is centralized in the Northern District Court of Ohio.  In April 2011, DePuy responded to the petition, conceding that the cases should be consolidated for discovery purposes, but suggested the MDL take place in the Northern District of Texas.  The decision is expected to be made when the Panel convenes on May 16, 2011, in Louisville, Kentucky.

Over 30 federal cases have been filed across 18 districts.  Granting MDL treatment will consolidate all federal lawsuits filed across the U.S. into one centralized district.  This consolidation will streamline the pretrial discovery process, allowing the parties to avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings from different judges. 

If you are experiencing adverse effects from a defective DePuy Pinnacle hip implant, you can contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort/Pharmaceutical Litigation attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against DePuy Orthopaedics.

ERISA: Exhausting Remedies

no picture

As a general rule a party must exhaust its administrative remedies before it can invoke the jurisdiction of the courts. However, the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have all held that exhaustion is not a prerequisite to suits alleging statutory ERISA violations.

One potential administrative remedy that employees should consider is filing a complaint with the US Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration.

Time of Application Rule

no picture

We not only celebrated May 5, 2011 with the traditional Cinco de Mayo celebrations, but those in the development community celebrated the day as the date on which a new statute, commonly known as the Time of Application Rule, became effective. This new provision modifies the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law to lock in development regulations as of the filing of an application.

 

Under the old Time of Decision Rule, a developer was bound by all development regulations in effect, not coincidentally, at the time of the decision. This rule applies common sense to the regulation of municipal land use in New Jersey by making those ordinance provisions in effect at the time of submission of an application binding and not subject to change, except for ordinances relating to health and public safety. While reaching consensus with local officials is always a useful objective in the pursuit of development approvals, whether or not to approach such officials before an application is filed will need to be considered anew in light of the Time of Application Rule.

 

You can access a copy of the Time of Application rule online here.
 

New Jersey State Cases Centralized in Bergen County

no picture

As we previously discussed, on December 9, 2010, a Notice to the Bar was issued by Judge Glenn A. Grant, Acting Administrator of the Courts, advising that an application had been made, pursuant to Directive #7-09, “Revised Mass Tort Guidelines,” requesting designation of all New Jersey state-court litigation involving DePuy ASR™ hip implants as a mass tort and assignment for centralized management in Middlesex County. The federal cases have already been consolidated in the Northern District Court of Ohio. 
 

On April 12, 2011, The Supreme Court of New Jersey Court ordered that all New Jersey cases shall be assigned for centralized case management purposes to Judge Brian R. Martinotti in Bergen County, New Jersey.  As such, any cases filed in New Jersey state court will be transferred to Judge Martinotti to manage discovery. 
 

The initial Case Management Conference with Judge Martinotti is scheduled for May 10, 2011, at which time, counsel is expected to discuss, among other things, the implementation of a discovery plan as well as efforts to coordinate with Judge David A. Katz, who is overseeing the cases in the federal MDL.

 

If you have had a hip replacement, which used one of the recalled DePuy devices, you can contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against the DePuy manufacturers.