Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Child-Support Judgments Beyond U.S. Borders
It is supposed to be easy for a litigant who has obtained a child-support judgment from outside of a state to get relief in another state. The whole purpose behind the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), adopted, for example, as Article 5-b of the New York Family Court Act (FCA), is to make the process uniform, cheap and easy to register and enforce support judgments from different states. But what about a cross-border award? Here, the U.S. government steps in with the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, a multilateral treaty governing the enforcement of judicial decisions regarding child support (and other forms of family support) extraterritorially. Pursuant to the Convention, the United States has entered into reciprocity agreements with 26 countries which allow the same procedures used to register interstate awards to apply to foreign awards. See http://1.usa.gov/21wU7IY.
What do you do if your child support judgment is from a country not on the list?
The 2015 case of Bond v. Lichtenstein, 129 A.D.3d 535 (1st Dept. 2015), in which the authors represented the mother, Annabelle Bond, is instructive. In that case, Bond brought an action in the Supreme Court, New York County, to enforce the judgment she obtained in Hong Kong awarding child support. The case clarified for the first time how to enforce such an award and the entitlement to attorney fees in so doing.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.