Kenneth Mr. Vercammen was included in the 2020 “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters.

To schedule a confidential consultation, email us at VercammenAppointments@NJlaws.com, call or visit www.njlaws.com

(732) 572-0500

Showing posts with label BARBARA A BOTIS VS. ESTATE OF GARY G KUDRICK VS. WELLS FARGO BANK A-5562-09T4. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BARBARA A BOTIS VS. ESTATE OF GARY G KUDRICK VS. WELLS FARGO BANK A-5562-09T4. Show all posts

Thursday, May 19, 2011

BARBARA A BOTIS VS. ESTATE OF GARY G KUDRICK VS. WELLS FARGO BANK A-5562-09T4

BARBARA A BOTIS VS. ESTATE OF GARY G KUDRICK VS. WELLS FARGO BANK

A-5562-09T4 Effective January 18, 2009, the statute of frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-5 to -16, was amended to include palimony agreements among the types of "agreements or promises" that must be in writing and signed by the parties in order to be enforceable. N.J.S.A. 25:1-5(h); L. 2009, c. 311, § 1. This case requires us to determine whether to accord the amendment retroactive effect in a case filed against the deceased promisor's Estate prior to the effective date of the amendment on an alleged palimony agreement enforceable when the complaint was filed. We conclude that the amendment applies prospectively and affirm the June 9, 2010 order denying the Estate's motion to dismiss the complaint, which is before us on leave granted. 04-21-11

Saturday, April 30, 2011

BARBARA A BOTIS VS. ESTATE OF GARY G KUDRICK VS. WELLS FARGO BANK A-5562-09T4

BARBARA A BOTIS VS. ESTATE OF GARY G KUDRICK VS. WELLS

FARGO BANK

A-5562-09T4

Effective January 18, 2009, the statute of frauds, N.J.S.A.

25:1-5 to -16, was amended to include palimony agreements among

the types of "agreements or promises" that must be in writing

and signed by the parties in order to be enforceable. N.J.S.A.

25:1-5(h); L. 2009, c. 311, § 1. This case requires us to

determine whether to accord the amendment retroactive effect in

a case filed against the deceased promisor's Estate prior to the

effective date of the amendment on an alleged palimony agreement

enforceable when the complaint was filed. We conclude that the

amendment applies prospectively and affirm the June 9, 2010

order denying the Estate's motion to dismiss the complaint,

which is before us on leave granted. 04-21-11