NANCY E. LANDERS VS. PATRICK J. LANDERS
A-3931-14T3
In this matter, we clarify the application of the 2014
amendments to the alimony statute addressing the modification of
alimony when an obligor retires. When an obligor files an
application to terminate or modify alimony upon his or her
retirement, the circumstances of the parties are examined under
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(j). More specifically, subsection (j)(1),
which places the burden of proof on the obligee to rebut the
presumption to terminate alimony when an obligor reaches full
retirement age as defined under the statute, is used for alimony
awards entered after the effective date of the amended statute.
On the other hand, subsection (j)(3), which requires an obligor
to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence modification
or termination of alimony is appropriate, governs review of
final alimony awards established prior to the effective date of
the statutory amendments. Sunday, February 28, 2016
NANCY E. LANDERS VS. PATRICK J. LANDERS A-3931-14T3
Sunday, February 21, 2016
ALEXANDER BARDIS, ET AL. VS. KITTY STINSON, ET AL. A-3454-12T3
ALEXANDER BARDIS, ET AL. VS. KITTY STINSON, ET AL.
A-3454-12T3
(NEWLY PUBLISHED OPINION FOR FEBRUARY 19, 2016)
Plaintiffs Alexander Bardis and Monica Bardis appeal from
the January 25, 2013 Law Division order granting summary
judgment in favor of defendants Kitty Stinson, Stinson Claims
Services (collectively Stinson), and Cumberland Insurance Group
(Cumberland) (collectively Defendants). The trial court found
there was no coverage under plaintiffs' homeowner's insurance
policy for the collapsed basement wall and other damages to
their home allegedly caused by "hidden decay." The court also
rejected plaintiffs' argument that "hidden defects" allegedly
resulting from the faulty construction meant the same as "hidden
decay," and were thereby covered losses under the policy. We
find a question of fact regarding causation, and ultimately
coverage, and therefore, reverse and remand.
Judge Sapp-Peterson respectfully dissents, reasoning there is no ambiguity in the terms of the commercial dwelling policy issued to plaintiffs
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY VS. K.F. AND R.G. AND
NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY
VS. K.F. AND R.G. AND D.M.I/M/O A.M. AND N.G.
A-0558-14T1
We reverse application of the burden-shifting paradigm
found in In re D.T., 229 N.J. Super. 509 (App. Div. 1988), in an
abuse and neglect case involving a twenty-five-day-old infant.
The parents brought the child to the emergency room with a
bruised lip and small bump on the side of the head which they
claimed resulted from the baby falling off a bed. Throughout
the investigation, neither parent wavered from the narrative
that the mother took the infant into the bedroom and left him
there sleeping. While in the living room, they heard the baby
suddenly start to cry, the mother returned to the bedroom and
found him on the floor. They immediately took the child for
treatment. Since an infant that age cannot roll, that night
medical personnel referred the matter to the Division of Child
Protection and Permanency.
During the fact-finding hearing, the trial judge shifted the burden of persuasion to the father because the mother's explanation that she placed the child near the edge of the bed was unconvincing, and the father was in the home when the
incident occurred. We conclude that merely finding one parent's
explanation insufficient should not result in shifting the
burden to the other.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-
THROUGH CERTIFICATES, 2006-EQ1 VS. JOANN L. CURCIO, ET
AL.
A-2649-13T4
After unsuccessful attempts at personal service, plaintiff served the complaint in foreclosure on defendant at the encumbered property by regular and certified mail. We rule that defendant's failure to challenge service earlier, in her opposition to the entry of a final judgment in default, bars a belated attempt to raise the issue in a motion to vacate default judgment. In any event, such service by mail was proper under Rule 4:4-3(a) because plaintiff adequately attempted personal service, and its certificate showed plaintiff first made diligent inquiry to determine if defendant still resided at the encumbered property. Plaintiff was not required to obtain a court order or file an affidavit before making service by mail. Rather, the certificate showing diligent inquiry and service must be filed within the time to answer the complaint. Because plaintiff served defendant within the State under Rule 4:4-3(a), plaintiff did not need to follow the rules governing mail
A-2649-13T4
After unsuccessful attempts at personal service, plaintiff served the complaint in foreclosure on defendant at the encumbered property by regular and certified mail. We rule that defendant's failure to challenge service earlier, in her opposition to the entry of a final judgment in default, bars a belated attempt to raise the issue in a motion to vacate default judgment. In any event, such service by mail was proper under Rule 4:4-3(a) because plaintiff adequately attempted personal service, and its certificate showed plaintiff first made diligent inquiry to determine if defendant still resided at the encumbered property. Plaintiff was not required to obtain a court order or file an affidavit before making service by mail. Rather, the certificate showing diligent inquiry and service must be filed within the time to answer the complaint. Because plaintiff served defendant within the State under Rule 4:4-3(a), plaintiff did not need to follow the rules governing mail
service out of State, Rule 4:4-4(b)(1)(C), or mail service to
obtain in rem jurisdiction, Rule 4:4-5(a)(2), or meet Rule 4:4-
5(c)'s requirements for affidavits under those rules.
Templo Fuente De Vida Corp v. National Union Fire
Templo Fuente De Vida Corp v. National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh (A-18-12; 074572)
First Independent’s failure to comply with the notice provisions of the bargained for Directors and Officers “claims made” policy constituted a breach of the policy, and National Union may decline coverage without demonstrating appreciable prejudice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)