The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently declined to invalidate a federal prosecution against a woman, Carol Anne Bond, who was accused of placing toxic chemicals (stolen from her employer) on the doorknob, mailbox and car door handles of her husband’s lover. Bond was prosecuted under the Federal Chemical Weapons Act and wanted the law declared unconstitutional. The Third Circuit apparently viewed the prosecution under this particular law as a stretch (one would imagine the intent of the Chemical Weapons Act would be to preclude larger-scale acts of terrorism), but declined to hold the law unconstitutional.
Whether or not she should have been prosecuted under the Chemical Weapons Act, Bond’s actions would certainly constitute Domestic Violence under New Jersey law. Her acts (if directed against the husband rather than his lover) also would likely be sufficiently egregious to warrant an unequal distribution of marital assets in a divorce trial. New Jersey has carved a very narrow exception to the rule that marital fault should not play a role in alimony or the division of assets. In Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70 (2005) the New Jersey Supreme Court described a very small set of cases in which fault could effect the economic outcomes in a divorce, including cases where a spouse took out a contract to murder the other spouse, or deliberately infected the other spouse with a “loathsome disease.” Attempts to poison a spouse with toxic chemicals probably rises to the level the N.J. Supreme Court was describing. Bottom line, don’t use chemical weapons on anyone, even if they have broken your heart!
C. Megan Oltman, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 609-924-2900, or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: domestic violence--
--Tagged under: alimony--
--Tagged under: equitable distribution--
--Tagged under: Family Law--
As of Saturday, February 25, 2012, Strich Law Firm and Mediation Office will be moving to our lovely new digs, at 4525 Route 27, Kingston NJ 08528. Please come look us up!
C. Megan Oltman, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 609-924-2900, or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: law office--
Last week, as you are probably aware, both houses of the New Jersey Legislature passed the Marriage Equality Act, although Governor Christie swiftly vetoed the legislation. (Commentators indicate that Governor Christie himself is not anti-gay or anti- marriage equality, but is catering to prospective Republican primary voters in South Carolina in 2016.) The Act passed by 42 to 33 in the Assembly and 24 to 16 in the Senate. To override the veto, 50 votes are needed in the Assembly and 27 in the Senate. Proponents have until January 2014, the end of the current legislative term, to gather enough votes to override.
In the meantime, in an unpublished decision in Garden State Equality v. Dow, Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg granted plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the two equal protection counts of the complaint. The case will now proceed to trial on those two counts, with the intention of making the record for the unequal treatment of civil union partners which the New Jersey Supreme Court indicated would be needed to overturn the civil union law.
It will be interesting to see which pathway is completed first. Will NJ join the ranks of states legislating marriage equality, or will equality be mandated by the Courts? One way or another, passage of marriage equality seems assured in the next few years.
C. Megan Oltman, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 609-924-2900, or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: equal rights--
--Tagged under: equal protection--
--Tagged under: LGBT Rights--
--Tagged under: family law--
--Tagged under: marriage equality--
It used to be that the single biggest asset the average married couple owned was their home. It used to be that most couples had some equity in their home, and therefore there would be something to share out at the time of the divorce. Neither of these things is necessarily true any more, as more and more homeowners owe more on their home than its market value. So what happens if that couple, underwater on their house, without other significant assets, wants to divorce?
It won’t work for one of the parties to refinance and buy the other out unless there is enough equity that a bank would be willing to take on the refinance. Sales can take a long time in this market. More and more couples are being forced to share the home after they have filed for divorce, or even after the divorce judgment.
How does that work, sharing the home? It will vary greatly based on the personalities of the two people involved, and on their animosity level. What’s needed is to take a business-like approach to the arrangement and to put emotion to the side.
Easier said than done, certainly. We find that many couples who have used mediation to settle the issues in their divorce will have an easier time coming up with a mutual set of ground-rules about how to share a home while ending a marriage. Even if the divorce itself is not mediated, meeting together with a mediator can give you a great neutral space and a facilitator to figure out how to share your space while you wait to sell.
C. Megan Oltman
Call us with more questions at 609-924-2900, or 732-438-3880, or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: divorce--
--Tagged under: Family Law--
--Tagged under: mediation--
--Tagged under: marital home--
The branch of New Jersey’s Domestic Violence law dealing with harassment got further explanation by the Appellate Division this week in C.C. v. T.R. The Defendant tried to avail himself of the earlier Appellate Division case, E.D. v. P.D., in which the Appellate Division overturned a Final Restraining Order for harassment where the conduct (leaving belligerent messages and calls at the plaintiff’s work, name-calling and giving the finger) amounted only to a “domestic contretemps” and was not sufficient to make out a complaint of harassment. In this case, however, the Appellate Division found that the defendant’s conduct - sending a large number of alarming text messages in a short period of time, entering plaintiff’s home without permission, threatening to report her to various agencies, accessing her laptop, and hiring a detective to follow her - was for the purpose of intimidating and harassing plaintiff.
Where exactly does the line lie between a domestic contretemps and actionable harassment? E.D. obviously had not crossed the line, while C.C. had. The quality of the behavior in C.C. appears significantly more intrusive, threatening and disruptive to the plaintiff’s life than that in E.D., suggesting a rule of thumb.
C. Megan Oltman
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: family law--
--Tagged under: domestic violence--
--Tagged under: harassment--
The New Jersey Assembly Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to recommend passage of a bill that would allow a reduction in alimony or child support if the payor demonstrates a reduction in income due to unemployment or disability. While Family Part Judges have already had the power to grant such reductions upon a showing of changed circumstances, they have wide latitude to decide whether the reduction in income is temporary, or if it is voluntary. Judges have varied widely in the amount of attention they give to the current poor economy and its effect on earning power. The proposed added language in the Bill reads:
“The obligation to pay child support may be modified based upon
changed circumstances, which may include a diminishment of the
obligor’s income due to unemployment, temporary disability or
similar circumstances for a period lasting longer than six months,
unless the court determines that such diminution in income was
deliberately incurred by the obligor in order to evade such support
obligation or that the obligor has failed to make reasonable efforts
to secure alternative employment.”
This appears to me to be no more than a codification of existing practice, and it will be interesting to see how much difference a specific mandate like this will make in Family Part decisions. The intention of the sponsor, Representative Sean Kean (R-Monmouth & Ocean), is to ensure that financial issues between divorcing spouses are “fairly resolved and periodically assessed to ensure an undue burden is not placed on a person paying alimony.”
C. Megan Oltman
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: Family Law--
--Tagged under: Alimony--
--Tagged under: alimony modification--
--Tagged under: Child Support--
--Tagged under: child support modification--
The New Jersey State Bar Association has filed an amicus brief in support of New Jersey’s landmark Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights legislation passed in the wake of the suicide of Rutgers student Tyler Clemente. The legislation has been challenged in the State Council on Local mandates by Allamuchy Township, which complained that the legislation is an unfunded mandate. The State Bar Association has argued that the mandate requires no funding, as existing non-profit resources exist for municipal personnel to get the training needed to implement the law. The Council disagreed, however, and the association is currently working with the legislature on finding funding sources. Notably, the Council stated that it supported the intent of the law, but that it invalidly imposed additional costs on local municipalities.
C. Megan Oltman
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: NJ State Bar Association--
--Tagged under: civil rights--
--Tagged under: municipalities--
--Tagged under: anti-bullying--
In a difficult economy, there are no guarantees of employment, as many new law school graduates are discovering. Does this mean law schools are training too many lawyers? When I took the LSAT, way back in 1982, the essay question dealt with this issue: should law schools keep training lawyers if there were not enough jobs to go around? We test takers had to take an advocacy position in the essay, one way or the other.
A twist on this question is being played out right now in Alaburda v. Thomas Jefferson School of Law, a class action suit brought by recent graduates against the San Diego, California law school. The suit alleges that in order to keep bringing in students to pay the $135,000 plus bill for three years of law school, Thomas Jefferson School of Law has “adopted a practice of misrepresenting its post-graduation employment statistics.” The suit further alleges that the school conceals the fact that those graduates counted as “employed” in their statistics include those employed part-time and those employed in non-legal jobs.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court; the suit may have wide-ranging implications for how law schools recruit in the future. In the meantime, caveat emptor (buyer beware) - don’t pay big bucks for a graduate education without some clear idea of whether your advanced degree will buy you the kind of salary you are going to need.
C. Megan Oltman, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: legal profession--
--Tagged under: law school--
--Tagged under: law jobs--
--Tagged under: legal education--
In I/M/O Estate of Randall, 38-4-1372 Ch. Div. Essex County 2/1/11), the Court said a copy of a letter allegedly written by the decedent does not demonstrate sufficient testamentary intent to be probated. However, in this case, there was a handwritten notation in the decedent’s handwriting that, in the context of the letter and the maintenance of keeping it in a safe place, and, as such, the letter and notation could be probated.
The rules for probate changed so that documents other than the original Will may be considered for probate. The key is illustration of testamentary intent by the decedent, including trustworthiness of the document.
Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: estate--
--Tagged under: estat--
--Tagged under: estate planning--
--Tagged under: probate--
--Tagged under: probate--
--Tagged under: copy of will--
--Tagged under: testamentary intent--
--Tagged under: no original will--
A payee of child support filed a class action against the NJ probation department on its failure to charge post-judgment interest on child support arrears. In Lerro v NJ Department of Family Development, Office of Child Support Services (App. Div. 2011), the Court held she did not have standing (was not an appropriate class of person) both on a federal or state basis to sue on this issue because she was not the intended beneficiary of the federal requirement to calculate interest periodically.
It is my experience that post judgment interest is generally not added to child support arrears, though I feel it would be more fair to do so.
Gabrielle L. Strich, Esq.
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
--Tagged under: child support--
--Tagged under: child support arrears--
--Tagged under: arrears--
--Tagged under: interest--
--Tagged under: child support arrears interest--
--Tagged under: Lerro v NJ Department of Family Development--
--Tagged under: post judgment interest--
--Tagged under: standing--
