Articles

by Bruce L. Harrison, Esq.

INTRODUCTION

In litigation in which we defend employers from claims of employment discrimination and/or wrongful termination, we commonly find that the employee/plaintiff has stolen documents from the Company. Presumably, the motivation for this misconduct is to build a documentary case against the employer prior to litigation. In a decision dated February 21, 2001, the Superior Court of New Jersey in Hudson County has for the first time in this state provided insight regarding the consequence of theft of company documents within the context of an employment discrimination claim. (more…)

Article

The Medicare Secondary Payer Statute

by Robert T. Lewis, Esq.

Printer-friendly version (PDF)

I. Background

A workers’ compensation settlement, with a waiver of future medical benefits, is negotiated between the parties and then placed before the presiding Judge of Compensation for approval. The Judge reviews the matter to ensure fairness to the parties. But, did anyone inquire as to whether it was fair for Medicare? (more…)

Newsletter

Workers’ Compensation Newsletter

September 2001

Does The Bond Rule Remain The Standard In New Jersey For Allocation Of Responsibility In Multiple Exposure Cases?

By John H. Geaney , Esq.

In one of the most important decisions in many years, the Appellate Division in Levas v. Midway Sheet Metal, 337 N.J.Super. 341 (App.Div. 2001) has clarified that Bond is not the only way to handle allocation of responsibility in occupational claims involving multiple employers. (more…)

Newsletter

Workers’ Compensation Newsletter

September 2001

Does The Bond Rule Remain The Standard In New Jersey For Allocation Of Responsibility In Multiple Exposure Cases?

By John H. Geaney , Esq.

In one of the most important decisions in many years, the Appellate Division in Levas v. Midway Sheet Metal, 337 N.J.Super. 341 (App.Div. 2001) has clarified that Bond is not the only way to handle allocation of responsibility in occupational claims involving multiple employers. (more…)

Article

Estate Planning: Answers To Some Common Questions

by Richard T. DeCou , Esq.

WHY HAVE A WILL?

At some point in life each of us recognizes our own mortality. If we have family, friends and property, we normally want to preserve our property for our family and friends, and to direct specific property or specific amounts of property to specific persons. Even those of us with little or no property will want to designate a guardian for minor children. (more…)

by Richard T. DeCou , Esq.

What happens after a family member has died?

Hopefully, the decedent will have left funeral instructions. If not, New Jersey statute indicates that the next of kin is the person with authority to make funeral and burial arrangements. If the next of kin is not also the executor, this leaves the next of kin making the decisions and the executor responsible to pay the bill from the decedent’s estate. Fortunately, actual conflicts seem to be rare. (more…)

by Carmen Saginario Jr., Esq.

What’s Happening Out There?

In the last ten years, over 1,500 companies have been prosecuted and sentenced for crimes committed by their employees and agents. Seventy-six percent of the 534 businesses sentenced in 2001 alone had less than 100 employees. A total of $2.3 Billion in fines, nearly $270 Million in restitution, and over 3000 years of probation have been imposed. Whether it’s a crippling fine or penalty, or the loss of your operating license, the criminal investigation, indictment, or conviction of your company can shake the foundation upon which you exist and inflict long-term damage to your competitive edge. (more…)

New Jersey is a state with relatively few retaliation law suits arising from workers’ compensation. For that reason, the decision in Peralta v. Joule Staffing Services, Inc., A-1004-11T3, A-1005-11T3 (App. Div. January 3, 2013) is drawing attention from practitioners. (more…)

It is certainly not for lack of trying that plaintiffs remain largely unsuccessful in opening the door to intentional harm claims in New Jersey. The door has remained closed in the past 10 years on intentional harm claims and all but locked, including the most recent challenge in Fendt v. Adam L. Abrahams, et. al., A-2333-11T1 (App. Div. April 9, 2013). (more…)

The term “equitable distribution” refers to the division between the spouses of assets and debts which are acquired during the marriage or civil union. “Equitable Distribution” is not supposed to be “equal distribution.” Like custody, alimony and above-Guidelines child support, equitable distribution is supposed to be determined by the application of factors. In the case of equitable distribution, there are sixteen factors, with the sixteenth factor being the ever-present “any other factors which the court may deem relevant” making the number of possible factors infinite.

Among the equitable distribution factors are such factors as: the duration of the marriage or civil union, any written agreement made by the parties before or during the marriage or civil union concerning property distribution (i.e. a Prenuptial or Mid-Marriage Agreement); the income and earning capacity of the parties; the contribution by each party to the education, training or earning power of the other party; the tax consequences of the proposed distribution; the present value of the property and other factors.

Before you have that “aha” moment, we must once again warn you about the difference between statutory theory and reality. While it is true that different factors apply in different situations, the best un-kept secret in New Jersey divorce law is that the we generally begin with the presumption that an asset or a liability will be equally divided between the parties and then the we look to see whether any of the sixteen factors might lead the Court to decide that in this particular case, for these particular reasons, something will not be divided equally.

For example, if one party put his or her inheritance into a jointly owned residence a short time before the divorce was filed, then the judge might give that spouse more than fifty percent of the equity in the house. Another common example is a judge will usually award less than fifty percent of the value of a closely held business to the non-owning spouse. Several theories for this exist: tax consequences on a later sale, the actively working spouse should be entitled to more of the value, perhaps it was a family-owned business that was gifted to the spouse and appreciated in value during the marriage or civil union, and the like. However, these are the exceptions to the general unspoken rule that assets and debts will be equally divided.

The process of Equitable Distribution is a three-step process. First, the attorneys need to identify which assets and debts are subject to distribution. Second, they must place a value on the assets and debts. Third, they must come up with a plan to divide the assets and debts.

Identification of the assets and debts is the least difficult of the three-steps as the parties are required to disclose all assets and debts under oath at the beginning of the case. Generally, spouses are aware of one another’s finances. However, if a spouse suspects that the other spouse is hiding assets, then an asset-tracing expert may be called into the case.

Valuation of an asset is often the most complex issue in divorce or dissolution cases. Among the different types of assets that may need to be valued are marital residences, investment properties, commercial properties, retirement plans and closely held businesses, medical practices, dental practices, and the like. While the valuation of real estate used to be a simple matter, it has proven to be very challenging since the decline of the real estate market. Attorneys need to locate and retain experts for each of these assets if the parties cannot agree on value. No matter what the asset, there is an expert somewhere who can place a value on the asset.

Equitable Distribution can be the most complicated and time-consuming area of family law. There are rules for valuation dates, rules for passive and active changes in value, differing methodology for valuing different assets and, perhaps most complicated of all, complex rules which apply to the distribution of retirement plans. Likewise, both obvious and latent tax consequences must be taken into account before equitable distribution can be accomplished. For all of these reasons, accounting and other experts are often called in as part of your divorce or dissolution team in order to make sure that all bases are covered.

As far as the third step is concerned, courts try to apportion the assets and debts in such a way that everything can be finalized at the time of the final judgment. For example, perhaps one spouse can retain the house and the other spouse can retain the retirement account. However, there are many times when a payout over time is the only way to effectuate equitable distribution.

Capehart Blogs

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Choose the blogs and newsletters you would like to receive.

Categories