Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NJ & CT News
NEW JERSEY
Surrogate Mother's Suit Against Attorney and Doctor Proceeds
A New Jersey court has held that a suit against a lawyer and a doctor who arranged a surrogate pregnancy deal can go forward. The professionals are being sued for civil conspiracy, as well as legal and medical malpractice, for allegedly misleading the surrogate mother about her rights. The ruling came in A.G.R. v. Brisman, Mon-L-1012-08, a case in which a woman who agreed to be a surrogate mother later decided she wanted to keep the twin babies she bore. In a separate suit, she is seeking custody of the children.
The landmark 1988 state Supreme Court case, In the Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396 (1988), held surrogacy contracts unenforceable in New Jersey. Therefore, in New Jersey, custody of children born to surrogate mothers who want to retain custody is decided by the courts, in accordance with the best interests of the children involved. Baby M did not deal, however, with the liability of professionals who set up surrogacy arrangements. The A.G.R. v. Brisman case is a first in that it is seeking money damages for harms related to a surrogacy agreement.
Grandparents Can Be Sued for Infliction of Emotional Distress
A man who sued his ex-parents-in-law claiming intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress due to their actions in alienating his children's affections is entitled to have his case heard. The grandparents sought to have the suit dismissed, claiming the father's action was in fact one for alienation of affection, a cause of action abolished by the so-called “Heart Balm Act.” The court declined to dismiss, finding that because the plaintiff alleged the defendants' alienating behavior caused him emotional distress, the predicate claim was not for alienation of affections but for emotional distress. The court dismissed a similar claim against the children's mother, however, because the matter was incidental to a divorce action and must proceed in family court. The case is Smith v. Smith, 20-2-2275, Law. Div. ' Hudson Cy. (Gallipoli, A.J.S.C.) (13 pp.).
CONNECTICUT
Waiting to Collect Does Not Pay Off for Law Firm
A law firm that waited years to seek payment for its services on behalf of a divorcing woman has been precluded from recovering its losses due to application of the doctrine of laches. The firm, Ouellette, DeGanis, and Gallagher, LLC, was hired in 2002 to handle a woman's divorce case. Although she signed the retainer contract, it was understood by all parties that the divorcing woman's parents were the ones who would pay the legal bills, since she had small children, did not work and had no money of her own. The parents made two payments to the firm, one for $1,000 and another for $500. The contract called for the firm to send quarterly bills to the woman, but none were ever sent to her address.
After the divorce was finalized, both parents died, one in 2003 and the other in 2005. The woman did not learn about an arrearage in her account until she contacted the law firm some years after her divorce seeking a copy of the decree. The law firm filed suit seeking payment in January 2007.
The court excused the woman from payment based on the doctrine of laches, which has two elements: 1) an inexcusable delay in the plaintiff's seeking payment, and 2) prejudice to the defendant due to that delay. The law firm offered no excuse for taking so long to bring the suit, and the defendant was prejudiced by that delay, notably by the fact that her two principle witnesses ' her parents ' had died in the intervening years. The case is Ouellette Deganis & Gallagher LLC v. Beckwith, No. CV075001604S, Not Reported in A.2d, 2008 WL 4926881 (Conn.Super.11/4/08).
NEW JERSEY
Surrogate Mother's Suit Against Attorney and Doctor Proceeds
A New Jersey court has held that a suit against a lawyer and a doctor who arranged a surrogate pregnancy deal can go forward. The professionals are being sued for civil conspiracy, as well as legal and medical malpractice, for allegedly misleading the surrogate mother about her rights. The ruling came in A.G.R. v. Brisman, Mon-L-1012-08, a case in which a woman who agreed to be a surrogate mother later decided she wanted to keep the twin babies she bore. In a separate suit, she is seeking custody of the children.
The landmark 1988 state Supreme Court case, In the Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396 (1988), held surrogacy contracts unenforceable in New Jersey. Therefore, in New Jersey, custody of children born to surrogate mothers who want to retain custody is decided by the courts, in accordance with the best interests of the children involved. Baby M did not deal, however, with the liability of professionals who set up surrogacy arrangements. The A.G.R. v. Brisman case is a first in that it is seeking money damages for harms related to a surrogacy agreement.
Grandparents Can Be Sued for Infliction of Emotional Distress
A man who sued his ex-parents-in-law claiming intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress due to their actions in alienating his children's affections is entitled to have his case heard. The grandparents sought to have the suit dismissed, claiming the father's action was in fact one for alienation of affection, a cause of action abolished by the so-called “Heart Balm Act.” The court declined to dismiss, finding that because the plaintiff alleged the defendants' alienating behavior caused him emotional distress, the predicate claim was not for alienation of affections but for emotional distress. The court dismissed a similar claim against the children's mother, however, because the matter was incidental to a divorce action and must proceed in family court. The case is Smith v. Smith, 20-2-2275, Law. Div. ' Hudson Cy. (Gallipoli, A.J.S.C.) (13 pp.).
CONNECTICUT
Waiting to Collect Does Not Pay Off for Law Firm
A law firm that waited years to seek payment for its services on behalf of a divorcing woman has been precluded from recovering its losses due to application of the doctrine of laches. The firm, Ouellette, DeGanis, and Gallagher, LLC, was hired in 2002 to handle a woman's divorce case. Although she signed the retainer contract, it was understood by all parties that the divorcing woman's parents were the ones who would pay the legal bills, since she had small children, did not work and had no money of her own. The parents made two payments to the firm, one for $1,000 and another for $500. The contract called for the firm to send quarterly bills to the woman, but none were ever sent to her address.
After the divorce was finalized, both parents died, one in 2003 and the other in 2005. The woman did not learn about an arrearage in her account until she contacted the law firm some years after her divorce seeking a copy of the decree. The law firm filed suit seeking payment in January 2007.
The court excused the woman from payment based on the doctrine of laches, which has two elements: 1) an inexcusable delay in the plaintiff's seeking payment, and 2) prejudice to the defendant due to that delay. The law firm offered no excuse for taking so long to bring the suit, and the defendant was prejudiced by that delay, notably by the fact that her two principle witnesses ' her parents ' had died in the intervening years. The case is Ouellette Deganis & Gallagher LLC v. Beckwith, No. CV075001604S, Not Reported in A.2d, 2008 WL 4926881 (Conn.Super.11/4/08).
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?