Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Like New Jersey, New York generally does not consider fault when distributing marital assets. (See Strober L: Marital Misconduct and Alimony. The Matrimonial Strategist, November 2006.) However, there are circumstances under which both states will factor in fault.
New York's Domestic Relations Law (DRL) ' 236 was amended, effective July 16, 1980, to add as Part 'B' the availability of multiple financial relief, including equitable distribution. Left in place as Part 'A' of the statute were the provisions for 'alimony' (termed 'maintenance' for the first time in Part 'B') for all actions begun before the effective date of the amendment. Under Part 'A,' alimony had been statutorily barred for a spouse found guilty of fault. While buried in the text, here is the language that led to that result:
Such direction may be made notwithstanding that the court refuses to grant the relief requested by either spouse ' (2) by reason of the misconduct of the other spouse, unless such misconduct would itself constitute grounds for separation or divorce '
In plain English, this meant that, under Part 'A,' a spouse could not receive alimony as a matter of law, if found guilty of fault sufficient to constitute grounds for separation or divorce (whether or not a separation or divorce were being sought on those grounds). Upon the enactment of Part 'B,' which did not contain this language, the question immediately arose: What effect, if any, would fault have upon the awarding of equitable distribution and maintenance? As to child support, the statute explicitly barred consideration of fault in fixing child support: 'The court shall not consider the misconduct of either party.' (DRL '236(B)(7)).
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.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.