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
Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Domestic Violence Prevention Law
New Jersey's Supreme Court has declared the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, which allows courts to issue restraints without a jury and based on a minimal burden of proof, to be constitutional. The court's unanimous February ruling in Crespo v. Crespo, A-28-09, affirmed the Appellate Division's overturning of a trial court opinion that struck down the 19-year old law. The Supreme Court agreed that there is no constitutional right to a jury in a domestic violence hearing; the preponderance-of-evidence standard does not flout due process; and the specification of court procedures does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. The court also agreed with the rejection of a Second Amendment argument: that the act's provision for seizure of guns is inconsistent with the individual's right to bear arms recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. There is no reason to think the ruling prohibits taking guns way from people who commit domestic violence, the state court said.
Clear and Convincing Evidence Needed to Undo Kinship Legal Guardianship
The New Jersey Supreme Court has set a high proof standard for parents seeking to regain a child taken from them and placed with a relative or friend. The court held Feb. 24 that they must show by clear and convincing evidence ' not a mere preponderance ' that the reason for removing the child no longer exists and that ending guardianship is in the child's best interests. The unanimous ruling, in N.J. Division of Youth and Family Services v. L.L., A-68-08, clarifies the Kinship Act, N.J.S.A. 3B:12A-1 to -7, enacted in 2002 as an alternative form of permanent placement for children who cannot safely remain with their parents. Kinship legal guardianship does not require termination of parental rights or that the caregiver adopt the child.
CONNECTICUT
Pendente Lite Order Allowing Use of Funds Not Ripe for Appeal
The Appellate Court of Connecticut has ruled that a woman's appeal of an interlocutory order allowing her husband to use $100,000 in funds held in his name was premature, as the order did not so conclude the rights of the parties in a way that further proceedings could not affect. Parrotta v. Parrotta, — A.2d —-, 2010 WL 537711 (Conn.App. 2/23/10). The ruling came after a Superior Court justice handling a marriage dissolution case partially lifted an automatic order regarding disposition of property in order to allow the husband to spend $100,000, which came from a brokerage account in his name alone. The money was to be used for attorney fees to defend himself in a prosecution for allegedly assaulting and attempting to murder his wife. The Appellate Court of Connecticut found that the wife's claim failed the finality test because not only did the lifting of the order not affect rights that she presently held (because the funds in question were in her husbands name only), but the trail court specifically retained for itself the right to consider the $100,000 when making future decisions about distribution of the marital assets.
NEW JERSEY
Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Domestic Violence Prevention Law
New Jersey's Supreme Court has declared the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, which allows courts to issue restraints without a jury and based on a minimal burden of proof, to be constitutional. The court's unanimous February ruling in Crespo v. Crespo, A-28-09, affirmed the Appellate Division's overturning of a trial court opinion that struck down the 19-year old law. The Supreme Court agreed that there is no constitutional right to a jury in a domestic violence hearing; the preponderance-of-evidence standard does not flout due process; and the specification of court procedures does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. The court also agreed with the rejection of a Second Amendment argument: that the act's provision for seizure of guns is inconsistent with the individual's right to bear arms recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. There is no reason to think the ruling prohibits taking guns way from people who commit domestic violence, the state court said.
Clear and Convincing Evidence Needed to Undo Kinship Legal Guardianship
The New Jersey Supreme Court has set a high proof standard for parents seeking to regain a child taken from them and placed with a relative or friend. The court held Feb. 24 that they must show by clear and convincing evidence ' not a mere preponderance ' that the reason for removing the child no longer exists and that ending guardianship is in the child's best interests. The unanimous ruling, in N.J. Division of Youth and Family Services v. L.L., A-68-08, clarifies the Kinship Act,
CONNECTICUT
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.