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
House Prices Fall, But Settlement Obligation Remains
The Appellate Division of New Jersey's Superior Court is holding a man to the terms of his property settlement agreement (PSA) with his ex-wife, refusing to allow him to change its terms merely because the real estate market has suffered a severe downturn. The ex-husband in J.D. v. M.D.F., 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2068 (App. Div. 7/29/11), appealed to the court from the portion of an order denying his request to modify the May 2005-signed PSA. The document contained a term guaranteeing the wife $6,500,000 from the proceeds of the sale of one of the couple's residences. That home had been valued in 2004 at $7,250,000 and was listed for sale that same year for $8 million. Subsequent drops in price failed to tempt buyers. It remains unsold and is currently valued well below $6,500,000. The appellate court noted that a trial court's broad discretion to modify a PSA under Rule 4:50-1(f) because of “exceptional and compelling circumstances” means that the court's decision may be overturned only if there has been a clear abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that the recession and decline of the housing market did not amount to an exceptional unanticipated circumstance sufficient to warrant modification of the PSA. It agreed with the trial court that both parties were aware at the time they signed the PSA that housing prices could go up or down before the house could be sold; it was for this reason that they agreed the wife would be guaranteed a certain sum, no matter what the actual sale price of the house was.
CONNECTICUT
Allegedly Battered Wife Gets Larger Share of
Marital Estate
While emphasizing that it was not sitting in judgment on the separate civil battery lawsuit brought by the wife against her husband, a court in Stamford recently awarded 75% of the marital estate to the wife in the case of Farren v. Farren, Doc. No. FA10-4017970S. The uneven distribution of the estate to the wife, formerly an attorney with Skadden Arps, was apparently justified by the fact that the husband's assault on his wife after she filed for divorce left her so badly injured that she can no longer maintain her employment. The husband in the case, former Bush administration attorney John Farren, has not only been sued by his wife for several million dollars, but has also been charged with attempted murder. He has pleaded not guilty.
NEW JERSEY
House Prices Fall, But Settlement Obligation Remains
The Appellate Division of New Jersey's Superior Court is holding a man to the terms of his property settlement agreement (PSA) with his ex-wife, refusing to allow him to change its terms merely because the real estate market has suffered a severe downturn. The ex-husband in J.D. v. M.D.F., 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2068 (App. Div. 7/29/11), appealed to the court from the portion of an order denying his request to modify the May 2005-signed PSA. The document contained a term guaranteeing the wife $6,500,000 from the proceeds of the sale of one of the couple's residences. That home had been valued in 2004 at $7,250,000 and was listed for sale that same year for $8 million. Subsequent drops in price failed to tempt buyers. It remains unsold and is currently valued well below $6,500,000. The appellate court noted that a trial court's broad discretion to modify a PSA under Rule 4:50-1(f) because of “exceptional and compelling circumstances” means that the court's decision may be overturned only if there has been a clear abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that the recession and decline of the housing market did not amount to an exceptional unanticipated circumstance sufficient to warrant modification of the PSA. It agreed with the trial court that both parties were aware at the time they signed the PSA that housing prices could go up or down before the house could be sold; it was for this reason that they agreed the wife would be guaranteed a certain sum, no matter what the actual sale price of the house was.
CONNECTICUT
Allegedly Battered Wife Gets Larger Share of
Marital Estate
While emphasizing that it was not sitting in judgment on the separate civil battery lawsuit brought by the wife against her husband, a court in Stamford recently awarded 75% of the marital estate to the wife in the case of Farren v. Farren, Doc. No. FA10-4017970S. The uneven distribution of the estate to the wife, formerly an attorney with
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.