Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Litigation
Union Member's Claim
A union member's claim against the union for poor quality of legal services in a matrimonial action cannot be maintained because the union's Legal Services Plan and the union itself are not the same entity. Ortiz v. Local 32BJ, 07 Civ. 8030 (LTS)(KNF), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, May 21, 2008.
In April 2000, Ortiz requested legal representation from 32BJ Legal Services in connection with divorce proceedings. After the divorce proceedings, the husband was directed, through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to distribute the sum of $2,041.17 from his Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan (“SRSP”). Thereafter, in July 2007, the sum of $2,971.21 was distributed from his plan. Ortiz commenced an action, pro se, claiming the union failed to assist him fully and properly. The court found the claim to be time-barred, but in addition, noted that Ortiz's claim against the union was misplaced because the union and the union's Legal Services Plan are not the same entity. It held only the Legal Services Plan could be found liable to Oritz.
Property in Poland
A court in the State of Washington has jurisdiction to divide real property located in Poland where it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution of the marriage. Kowalewski v. Kowalewska, No. 79662-9, Supreme Court of Washington, May 8, 2008.
The parties had been married for 28 years when they petitioned the court for a dissolution of their marriage. The parties owned real and personal property in the State of Washington and also an apartment and a farm in Poland. As both properties were found to be substantially equal in value, the husband proposed that both properties in Poland be sold and the proceeds divided equally. Instead, the court awarded the apartment to the wife and the farm to the husband. Neither party appealed the divorce decree, but one year later the husband moved to vacate the provisions relating to the division of the properties in Poland, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to award title to real property located outside of Washington State. The trial court denied the motion and the husband appealed. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, and the husband appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington State. In its decision, the state supreme court held that there is a distinction between jurisdiction to adjudicate title to land and jurisdiction to settle the parties' personal interests in real estate. It further held that although a court in one state does not have the power to affect title directly to real property located outside the state, it does have the power to affect title indirectly by means of an in personam decree operating on the person over whom it has jurisdiction. It considered that in this case, where the court clearly had personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution, its jurisdiction encompassed the power to adjudicate their personal interests in the real property located in Poland. The court further held that its division of the Polish properties did not intrude upon Poland's sovereignty over issues of title and value of real property because it still remained for the Polish courts to decide what effect, if any, the Washington decree had on the legal ownership of the real property in Poland.
Union Member's Claim
A union member's claim against the union for poor quality of legal services in a matrimonial action cannot be maintained because the union's Legal Services Plan and the union itself are not the same entity. Ortiz v. Local 32BJ, 07 Civ. 8030 (LTS)(KNF), United States District Court for the Southern District of
In April 2000, Ortiz requested legal representation from 32BJ Legal Services in connection with divorce proceedings. After the divorce proceedings, the husband was directed, through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to distribute the sum of $2,041.17 from his Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan (“SRSP”). Thereafter, in July 2007, the sum of $2,971.21 was distributed from his plan. Ortiz commenced an action, pro se, claiming the union failed to assist him fully and properly. The court found the claim to be time-barred, but in addition, noted that Ortiz's claim against the union was misplaced because the union and the union's Legal Services Plan are not the same entity. It held only the Legal Services Plan could be found liable to Oritz.
Property in Poland
A court in the State of Washington has jurisdiction to divide real property located in Poland where it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution of the marriage. Kowalewski v. Kowalewska, No. 79662-9, Supreme Court of Washington, May 8, 2008.
The parties had been married for 28 years when they petitioned the court for a dissolution of their marriage. The parties owned real and personal property in the State of Washington and also an apartment and a farm in Poland. As both properties were found to be substantially equal in value, the husband proposed that both properties in Poland be sold and the proceeds divided equally. Instead, the court awarded the apartment to the wife and the farm to the husband. Neither party appealed the divorce decree, but one year later the husband moved to vacate the provisions relating to the division of the properties in Poland, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to award title to real property located outside of Washington State. The trial court denied the motion and the husband appealed. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, and the husband appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington State. In its decision, the state supreme court held that there is a distinction between jurisdiction to adjudicate title to land and jurisdiction to settle the parties' personal interests in real estate. It further held that although a court in one state does not have the power to affect title directly to real property located outside the state, it does have the power to affect title indirectly by means of an in personam decree operating on the person over whom it has jurisdiction. It considered that in this case, where the court clearly had personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the dissolution, its jurisdiction encompassed the power to adjudicate their personal interests in the real property located in Poland. The court further held that its division of the Polish properties did not intrude upon Poland's sovereignty over issues of title and value of real property because it still remained for the Polish courts to decide what effect, if any, the Washington decree had on the legal ownership of the real property in Poland.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.