Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NJ & CT News
CONNECTICUT
Even Postjudgment, Wife Can Be Awarded More Than Requested
In the case of Fitzsimons v. Fitzsimons, 116 Conn.App. 449 (Conn.App. 8/11/09), the Appellate Court of Connecticut held that a divorcing party may properly be awarded more than the amount he or she requested. The decision was following review of a case handled by Superior Court, Judicial District of Ansonia-Milford, in which a woman was originally awarded 50% of the value of the marital home (the amount she asked for), but was granted postjudgment relief in the amount of an additional 10% share. The original order did not, however, permit her to remain in the home for approximately six years, as she had requested. The husband appealed, asserting that “[t]o the extent that the [wife] failed to enumerate a claim for [60%] of the marital equity in her proposed orders, she failed to comply with the requirements of [Practice Book] ' 25-30(c),” and should not be permitted to assert that claim postjudgment. The appellate court found that there was no reason an award higher or different than that requested by a divorcing party could not be awarded; indeed, Connecticut courts may properly award alimony even when it is not requested (see Porter v. Porter, 61 Conn.App. 791 (2001)). Moreover, ' 52-212a permits a party to seek modification of a final judgment within four months of that judgment, and the wife's request for modification was filed within that time frame. “Accordingly,” said the appellate court, “the court had the discretion to open and to modify the judgment,” particularly in light of the fact that, because the wife was not permitted to remain in the home for six years, she was not in fact granted the full extent of the award she had originally sought.
NEW JERSEY
Financial Holdings Do Not Confer Jurisdiction over Marital Assets
New Jersey's Appellate Division on Aug. 17 held in Boghosian v. Boghosian, 20-2-5046 App. Div. (per curiam) (23 pp.) that New Jersey's courts do not have jurisdiction to order the equitable distribution of a divorcing couple's assets when one of the parties is not a bona fide resident of New Jersey and has no contacts with the forum, save some accounts held in financial institutions within New Jersey.
CONNECTICUT
Even Postjudgment, Wife Can Be Awarded More Than Requested
In the case of
NEW JERSEY
Financial Holdings Do Not Confer Jurisdiction over Marital Assets
New Jersey's Appellate Division on Aug. 17 held in
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
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.