Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Finding a lack of authority on the issue of “double dipping” in child support awards, Justice Robert A. Ross of the Nassau County Supreme Court found in a case decided earlier this year that the public policy against “miscalculations” in distributive awards demanded that the amount the husband paid the wife for his enhanced earnings capacity could not be computed as part of his income in determining his child support payments. Goodman v. Goodman, 201099-00. Justice Ross' decision also held that since the enhanced earnings capacity award should not be calculated as income for the husband in the case, the portion going to the wife must be determined as her income for purposes of determining a child custody award. The double-dipping issue arises when courts, in determining the amount of child support a non-custodial spouse owes, do not exempt from the non-custodial spouse's income the amount he or she must pay out in an enhanced earnings capacity award to the custodial spouse.
In reaching his decision, Justice Ross turned to two court of appeals cases, which held that enhanced earnings capacity could not be used in calculating maintenance awards. Although McSparron v. McSparron, 87 NY2d 75, and Grunfeld v. Grunfeld, 94 NY2d 696, did not specifically include child support in their ban against double-dipping, Justice Ross reasoned that the cases' general warnings for courts to guard against duplication in maintenance awards warranted his finding.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.