Moper Transportation, Inc., et al. v. Norbet Trucking

03-27-08 A-0992-06T2

Under New Jersey choice-of-law principles, New Jersey law
controls the dispute between two insurance carriers as to
coverage when the policies covering a New Jersey vehicle and its
tractor are issued to New Jersey corporations in New Jersey,
even though the accident occurred in New York and the drivers
lived there. The settlement of the underlying personal injury
action in New York distinguishes this case from others pointing
to New York's governmental interest, and New Jersey law controls
as to the allocation of loss between carriers.

Linda Lavin Gotlib v. Jonathan Gotlib

03-27-08 A-5679-05T1

In this matrimonial appeal, we hold that the non-custodial
parent's obligation to reimburse the custodial parent for
medical expenses not covered by insurance, should be deemed by a
court reviewing a motion to enforce litigant's rights as an
essential benefit to the parties’ children. The right to
receive these payments belongs to the children, and is therefore
not subject to waiver by the inactions of the custodial parent.
However, the non-custodial parent, from whom reimbursement is
sought, retains the right to question the reasonableness of any
individual medical expense.
On the question of the children's college education, we
remand for the trial court to make factual findings, after
conducting a plenary hearing, guided by the factors outlined in
Gac v. Gac, 186 N.J. 535 (2006) and Newburgh v. Arrigo, 88 N.J.
529 (1982).
We also hold that a mortgage on the former marital
residence, held by one spouse as mortgagee to secure his
equitable distribution interest, may be assigned to a third
party. However, we decline to decide whether the assignee is a
holder in due course, because he was not a named party in the
proceedings before the Family Part.

Spring Creek Holding Company, Inc. v. Shinnihon U.S.A. Co., Ltd.

03-27-08 A-4606-05T2

Applying the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 251, we
held that a seller of real estate acted within its rights in
terminating the agreement of sale because of a series of events
that led the seller to reasonably believe that a protracted
internal shareholder dispute over control of the buyer
corporation would prevent the buyer from performing, primarily
with respect to prosecuting zoning approvals. The seller
demanded adequate assurance of performance. The documentary
record supported the Chancery Division judge's finding in
granting summary judgment in the seller's favor that no rational
factfinder could find that the buyer provided adequate assurance
of performance. We further held that the apparent resolution of
the shareholder dispute through a federal lawsuit more than
three years after the seller terminated the agreement did not
affect the outcome of this litigation.

Nieschmidt Law Office v. Deborah Leamann

03-24-08 A-5272-06T3

We affirmed the dismissal of a law firm's complaint for
unpaid legal fees for failure to give thirty-day Pre-Action
Notice pursuant to Rule 1:20A-6, holding that a defendant's
intention to defend against the complaint rather than
participate in fee arbitration does not absolve a plaintiff's
failure to give the required notice. We also noted that the
imminent running of the six-year statute of limitations
preventing plaintiff from filing the required thirty-day Pre-
Action Notice did not absolve plaintiff under the circumstances
because plaintiff waited until the Notice could not be filed in
a timely manner.

IMO Petition of S.D. of Removal for the Voluntary Self-Exclusion List

03-20-08 A-3427-06T2

The Casino Control Commission promulgated regulations for
voluntary self-exclusion of problem gamblers from New Jersey
gaming activities. S.D. signed up for the lifetime SEL. Though
acknowledging he voluntarily requested, with full knowledge and
intent, the direct statutory consequences of his placement on
the SEL, namely a lifetime ban from New Jersey casinos, S.D.
sought removal upon becoming aware that some out-of-state
casinos affiliated with those in New Jersey would also exclude
him from their gaming facilities.
The Commission denied the application, concluding the
potential extra-territorial consequences of placement on New
Jersey's SEL are collateral and do not negate the applicant's
voluntary actions, the harm is minimal when balanced against the
statutory aims of the SEL, and the agency's revision of its form
to include reference to this potential consequence after being
informed of it by S.D. do not demonstrate an acknowledgement of
a duty to disclose this information or the insufficiency of the
prior form signed by S.D.
We discern no basis to second-guess the agency's decision.

Kathleen v. Bauer, et al. v. Frederick Nesbitt, III

03-20-08 A-2343-06T2

In this opinion we discuss the potential liability of a
bar/restaurant under the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage
Server Fair Liability Act and the common law when a visibly
intoxicated patron who has been served liquor by the bar is
driven from the premises by an intoxicated underage patron who
was not served liquor, and a fatal automobile accident results.

Adamar of New Jersey, Inc. v. David Mason

03-19-08 A-2021-06T3

The Legislature established a twenty-year term for New
Jersey judgments, which can be extended for an additional
twenty-year term under N.J.S.A. 2A:14-5, provided the creditor
files a motion or other action to revive within twenty years
after the judgment was entered, and satisfies the elements of
Kronstadt v. Kronstadt, 238 N.J. Super. 614, 616-18 (App. Div.
l990) that: (1) the judgment is valid and subsisting; (2) it
remains unpaid in full or in part; and (3) there is no
outstanding impediment to its judicial enforcement, e.g., a
stay, a pending bankruptcy proceeding, an outstanding injunctive
order, or the like.