On March 11, 2021, President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the “Act”) into law. The Act is a $1.9 trillion economic relief package intended to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
During a Will contest, there are several different ways that a party seeking to challenge the validity of a Will may attack the document. One of the most common ways is to challenge the decedent’s competency when he/she executed the Will. In essence, the challenge would be that the decedent was not mentally competent at the time he/she executed the last will and testament, and therefore, this document is invalid as a matter of law.
Once an individual is appointed as an executor of an estate, they will have access to assets that belong to the estate. Some of these assets may involve liquid funds which the executor can utilize during the administration of the estate to complete this process. Some permissible uses would be retaining counsel to assist with administration, or using assets of the estate to pay any applicable taxes or expenses of the estate. Unfortunately, at times, the executor may improperly utilize estate assets for their benefit and not for the benefit of the estate or the beneficiaries of the same. Such misuse of estate funds by an executor would be a breach of the executor’s fiduciary duty.
On January 13, 2021, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in Branch v. Cream-O-Land Dairy, issued an important decision (available here) clarifying the scope of the so-called “good-faith defense” available to employers sued for violating the minimum wage and overtime compensation requirements of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (“NJWHL”). The Court’s opinion has significant implications for employers in New Jersey in terms of how they make certain compensation decisions and upon what authority employers can safely rely in ascertaining their legal obligations.
In our overstimulated environment with a plethora of brands, names, and marks, it is difficult for products to stand out. Some businesses, however, have managed to break through the noise by creating marks with lasting impressions on consumers. But there are limits, even for the most well-known brands such as Starbucks.
Many employees who are let go or terminated from employment don’t know what happens at work once they’re gone. Sometimes employees know or subsequently learn, whether through word of mouth, social media platforms such as LinkedIn, or the employer’s website, that they have been replaced. Sometimes their replacement is someone significantly younger, yet it is unclear exactly how old the replacement is. In a recent ruling, the Third Circuit has held the lack of knowledge doesn’t matter, at least not at the pleading stage of the litigation.
Home to nearly 9 million people, New Jersey is now the epicenter of the green rush hitting the East Coast. Investors, businesspeople, professionals, operators, pharmacists, doctors, and entrepreneurs have their sights set on what is predicted to be a billion-dollar adult use industry in the Garden State. Easily accessible to those living in New York City (8.4 million population) and those residing in Southeastern Pennsylvania (3+ million population), New Jersey stands ready to embrace the cannabis movement sweeping the nation. With limited licenses carrying unlimited potential for growth and profit, the emerging adult use marijuana market in New Jersey is slated to be one of, if not the most, competitive cannabis markets in the country.
If you are beneficiary of an Estate, at some point you will be asked to sign a Refunding Bond and Release prior to receiving your bequest from an Estate. The logical question that will arise is what exactly you are being asked to sign. The purpose of this blog is discuss generally what a Refunding Bond and Release is and how it relates to your distribution from the Estate.
Once again, but not surprisingly, an arbitration agreement conveyed by an employer and confirmed by an employee via email has been upheld by the New Jersey courts.
In a recent decision, Jasicki v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the motion court’s dismissal of an employee’s claims of sexual harassment, compelling arbitration. Holding the employee agreed to the company’s mandatory arbitration program communicated via a company-wide email by (1) opening the email, (2) failing to opt-out of the arbitration program, and (3) continuing her employment, the Appellate Division validated email arbitration agreements in the employment context under these circumstances, despite the employee’s assertion she never actually read the email. In doing so, the Appellate Division reinforced our courts’ approval of these less traditional and more controversial vehicles for securing employee assent to arbitration agreements. In short, quoting its decision in Jaworski v. Ernst & Young, the Appellate Division wrote: “An email, properly couched, can be an appropriate medium for forming an arbitration agreement.”
On July 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued an order authorizing several steps to support the resumption of landlord/tenant cases during the COVID-19 crisis. As discussed in another blog of mine, although there were limited circumstances to evict a commercial tenant, it was a difficult and timely process and, in most circumstances, the proofs needed to proceed were not present.