Several judges in Connecticut have deprived mothers of custody due to their vitriolic comments about the father. A woman recently lost temporary custody of her sons because, according to Judge F. Herbert Gruendel, her "incessant and completely unjustified vilification" of the father placed their younger son "in a condition of intense psychological turmoil."
When drafting and executing prenuptial agreements, the parties are generally concerned about protecting their assets and delineating their rights upon divorce. In addition to provisions in the event of divorce, however, careful attention also must be paid to the disposition of one's assets upon death. The provisions in the event of death may be particularly important where the assets to be protected were received from one's family or are comprised of a family business. Depending upon the circumstances, the death provisions of a prenuptial agreement may be used to negotiate more favorable divorce provisions for your client. Whether or not used in negotiation, any death provisions included in a prenuptial agreement require an understanding of complex federal tax issues, knowledge of state property law, and thoughtful drafting.
When a business is sold, there is often an allocation of a portion of the purchase price to a covenant not to compete. While this allocation may be appropriate in the sale of a business, frequently the allocation is artificial and is a behind-closed-doors deal between buyers and sellers, driven entirely by tax considerations. Such allocations may have unwanted and unintended consequences for a divorcing party.
Premarital agreements, commonly referred to as "pre-nups," are usually associated with celebrity marriages. Indeed, you'll likely hear someone ask after a high-profile marriage ends, "I wonder what their pre-nup says?" While most of us would like to learn the juicy details, it's important to remember that a prenuptial agreement does more than list who gets what.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
National rulings of interest to you and your practice.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently held by a 3-2 vote that employees who work in a nonunionized work force do not have the right to have a co-worker present at an investigatory interview with their employer, even if the affected employee reasonably believes that the interview might result in discipline.
Recent rulings you need to know.
The defense of employment-related lawsuits is a significant expense for employers that, many times, cannot be avoided. At the same time, it is an expense that offers little return on investment for the employer. Despite the efforts of at least some courts to try to resolve these cases through early mediation or to move them faster through the system, claims of employment discrimination and other alleged wrongdoing in the workplace, often languish far too long.
Suppose that you represent an employer that does not hire foreign nationals and is in an industry that does not lend itself to foreign workers. Does your client nevertheless have responsibilities under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)? The answer -- surprising to too many employers and attorneys -- is yes. The IRCA prohibits unfair immigration-related employment practices and makes all U.S. employers responsible for verifying the "employment eligibility" and "identity" of all employees hired to work in the United States after Nov. 6, 1986.
