Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Shortly after the entry of a divorce judgment, matrimonial litigants walk away with their respective pieces of the marital estate (sometimes with support or distributive payments to follow) and begin separate lives with separate interests. However, without adequate protections under the law, the value of the marital estate before that pivotal moment (and the value of each litigant's post-termination estate) could have been diminished by the actions of the other spouse. For this reason, some concept of a fiduciary obligation between spouses exists in the majority of the states. Whether in equitable distribution jurisdictions or community property jurisdictions “spouses must manage marital property with care shortly before the termination of the marriage to ensure that the full value of the marital estate gets divided justly according to the prevailing system of distribution. For example, in California, each spouse has a fiduciary obligation to act in good faith with respect to the management and control of community property. Cal. Fam. Code (Section sign) 721; see Duffy v. Duffy, 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 160, 164-65, 91 Cal. App. 4th 923, 930 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001); Rossi v. Rossi, 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 270, 275, 90 Cal. App. 4th 34, 40 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). Even in the equitable distribution state of Massachusetts, where there is no articulated concept of a fiduciary obligation, conduct that has harmed the marital estate may be considered a factor tending to decrease that spouse's equitable share of marital property upon divorce. Kittredge v. Kittredge, 441 Mass. 28, 803 N.E.2d 306 (Mass. 2004) (holding that a portion of the husband's gambling losses were chargeable to the husband in the ultimate division of marital property).
Today's Complexities
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.