Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the past few years more requests for modification of a child support obligations, either upward or downward, have been denied than granted. With regard to the cases in which an upward modification was denied, the courts have been reluctant to find that the party seeking to modify the child support obligation has established that any claimed change in circumstances was unanticipated or that the children's needs were not being met.
Similar to the cases seeking an upward modification of child support, it appears that courts are more likely to deny requests for downward modification of support obligations than to grant such requests. Following are some of the more significant recent decisions in the realm of child support award modification.
The Cases
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?