Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The increase in value of a titled spouse's separate property is subject to equitable distribution as marital property “to the extent that such appreciation is due in part to the contributions or efforts of the other spouse.” D.R.L. ' 236 (B)(1)(d)(3).
The Court of Appeals has repeatedly determined that a broad interpretation be given to this exclusion so as to favor the inclusion of such appreciation as marital property: “We hold that under the Equitable Distribution Law an increase in the value of separate property of one spouse, occurring during the marriage and prior to the commencement of matrimonial proceedings, which is due in part to the indirect contributions or efforts of the other spouse as homemaker and parent, should be considered marital property Domestic Relations Law '236 (B)(1)(d)(3).” Price v. Price, 69 N.Y2d 8 (1986); see Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481 (1984) (the term “separate property” must be construed narrowly).
Note that the increase need not be entirely, or even mostly, due to the non-titled spouse; rather it ” … depends primarily upon the nature of the asset and whether its appreciation was due in some measure to the time and efforts of the titled spouse. If such efforts…were aided and the time devoted to the enterprise made possible, at least in part, by the indirect contributions of the nontitled spouse, the appreciation should, to the extent it was produced by the efforts of the titled spouse, be considered a product of the marital partnership and hence, marital property.” Id.
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.
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.
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.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.