The recent unpublished (i.e., non-precedential) case of M.E.G. v. C.P. (link) shows how unpredictable family law matters can be. In the case, a child was born in June of 2016 in New Jersey. Under N.J.S.A., children may not be removed out of New Jersey without the consent of both parents unless a Court permits the removal. The parties were not married but planned to relocate from New Jersey to Florida after the child’s birth for a fresh start and financial stability. In November of 2017, the parties executed a relocation agreement which allowed the mother to relocate to Florida with the child and contemplated the father moving to Florida at a later time.
Last month, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an important decision concerning whether or not a supervisor’s use of two offensive racial slurs could support a hostile work environment claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Rios v. Meda Pharm, Inc., 2021 N.J. Lexis 553 (2020).
Your child’s transition to adulthood is an important time in life. If your child has reached age 18, particularly an adult child traveling to attend school or work, critical legal changes have occurred. At age 18, your child is an adult under New Jersey law, even if they are still living at home. Your adult child now controls their own medical and financial decisions, and a parent’s access to information is restricted. Several documents are available to address these changes and appoint agents to assist your child during this stage of life.
The tide has turned from last year! Slowly, the global Pandemic is coming to an end. In its wake, the retail industry has been forever changed with technological innovations and advancements, including online ordering and delivery/pickup, warehousing, automation, and mobile self-check-out. Although most landlords and tenants have worked together during the adversity, there are still a number of problem tenants that may not be able to recover or who may now use the bankruptcy process to get rid of debt and actually restructure.
Whether or not to vaccinate a child has been an issue for years that family law attorneys have addressed during divorce proceedings or in post-judgment cases (i.e., after a divorce). Clients often ask whether a Court has the authority to require a child to be vaccinated when one parent wants the child to be vaccinated and the other parent does not. This question has become even more relevant recently in light of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination being available to children ages 12 and older. A recent unpublished (i.e., non-precedential) Appellate Decision has shed some light on this issue. As is the case with most legal issues, the answer is “it depends.”
On Thursday, July 1, 2021, Governor Murphy signed a COVID-19 liability protection bill and, by doing so, gave community associations some immunity from certain legal claims arising from COVID-19. The law provides that a community association “shall be immune from civil liability for damages arising from, or related to, an exposure to, or transmission of, COVID-19 on the premises” providing the association has prominently displayed a sign “at the entrance of any communal space shared by…residents and their guests, such as pools, gyms, and clubhouses.” The sign must state the following:
“ANY PERSON ENTERING THE PREMISES WAIVES ALL CIVIL LIABILITY AGAINST THE PLANNED REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM, OR RELATED TO, AN EXPOSURE TO, OR TRANSMISSION OF, COVID-19 ON THE PREMISES, EXCEPT FOR ACTS OR OMISSIONS CONSTITUTING A CRIME, ACTUAL FRAUD, ACTUAL MALICE, GROSS NEGLIGENCE, RECKLESSNESS, OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT.”
In a 5 to 4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that PennEast Pipeline (“PennEast”) can use the power of eminent domain to take property rights from the State of New Jersey. The case in question involves a 113-mile natural gas pipeline project proposed by PennEast that requires the company to acquire real estate from private and public property owners in order to install the pipeline. Once the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted its approval for the project, PennEast either negotiated the purchase of the necessary property rights or filed complaints in the United States District Court seeking to take the property rights using the power of eminent domain. The State of New Jersey opposed PennEast’s efforts to use federal courts to take property in which the State of New Jersey has an interest. The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2019 that PennEast could not use federal courts to exercise the power of eminent domain to seize land from the State of New Jersey for the construction of the pipeline relying on language from the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment provides states with certain immunity protections barring private parties from suing states in federal court. The PennEast case raises important issues of state rights versus federal law, and implicates states’ rights of sovereign immunity.
The EEOC stated that employers can now order their employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccination shot, provided that they comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), religious exceptions, and other laws.
In general, it is well known that commercial construction liens must be filed within 90 days of the last date that a contractor provided materials and/or services for a project. Although this time may appear simple at first to calculate, contractors can often make a mistake concerning the last date they provided materials and/or services for the purposes of filing a lien claim. Should a contractor make such an error, there is the possibility that their lien claim may be late due to a particular section of the construction lien statute which is often overlooked.
On May 26, 2021, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division issued an important decision in Premier Physician Network, LLC v. Robert Maro, Jr., M.D., et al, (Docket No. A-1152-20) concerning the governance of New Jersey limited liability companies (LLC). The issue before the Court was whether members of an LLC were bound by the terms of an operating agreement by assent as set forth in N.J.S.A. 42:2C-12(b), which states that “[a] person that becomes a member of a limited liability company is deemed to assent to the operating agreement.” The Court held that a draft operating agreement does not become the operating agreement of an LLC unless there is an agreement of the members. Further, that assent only bounds future members of an LLC to an already agreed upon operating agreement.