Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
You Can't Go Back! Or Can You?
In 2009 the Court of Appeals articulated a new rule for Family Law practitioners, referred to by some as the “don't look back” rule. The court stated:
As a general rule, where payments are made before either party is anticipating the end of the marriage, and there is no fraud or concealment, courts should not look back and try to compensate for the fact that the net effect of the payments may, in some cases, have resulted in the reduction of marital assets. ' The parties' choice of how to spend funds during the course of the marriage should ordinarily be respected. Courts should not second-guess the economic decisions made during the course of a marriage, but rather should equitably distribute the assets and obligations remaining once the relationship is at an end.
Mahoney-Buntzman v. Buntzman, 12 NY3d 415, 421 (2009).
The court in Buntzman used this rule to deny a wife's attempts to recoup money that was spent during the marriage to pay the husband's maintenance obligation to his former wife and to pay back the husband's school loan that was taken out during the marriage. Although not explicitly stated, it seems apparent that the court's reasoning with respect to the previously existing obligation is that the parties go into the marriage with their eyes open and that, unless otherwise explicitly agreed to, it is understood that marital funds will be used to pay those obligations. The court does clearly state, with respect to the student loan, that since it was both incurred and paid off during the marriage, the loan was a marital obligation for which responsibility was to be shared between the spouses. After all, had the advanced degree led to an economic benefit, the other spouse would have been entitled to a share in its value. The court simply did not want courts reviewing economic decisions made during the course of a marriage, or attempting to adjust for the fact that certain payments made from separate property may have benefited both spouses ' or even the non-titled spouse alone.
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.
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.
Beach Boys Songs Written Decades Ago Triggered Current Quarrel With Lawyers
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
Transfer Tax Implications on Real Property Leases
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.