NJ & CT News

NEW JERSEY

Fight Over Gay Marriage Postponed

New Jersey's Supreme Court had not yet agreed to hear an appeal by a coalition of gay rights groups seeking legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey, but both proponents and opponents were prepared, on the assumption that it would. On July 20, in front of the State House in Trenton, the two sides held opposing rallies. Before the court was a motion in aid of litigants' rights, filed in March by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which claimed the legislature did not adhere to the court's 2006 mandate in Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415, to grant same-sex couples the same rights as married heterosexuals.

On July 26, however, an evenly divided Supreme Court declared it would not take on the issue. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, joined by Justices Helen Hoens and Robert Rivera-Soto, said there is not enough of a “trial-like” record to hear the motion to enforce litigants' rights. “Plaintiffs' motion is therefore denied without prejudice to plaintiffs filing an action in Superior Court and seeking to create a record there,” Rabner said. Justices Barry Albin, Jaynee LaVecchia and Virginia Long dissented, saying that while a full record does not exist, oral arguments would have helped the Court lay out a plan of action.

Oral Argument May Be Denied in Family Cases if Motion Is Deficient

New Jersey's Appellate Division held in July that Family Court judges have more leeway to deny oral argument than Court Rule 5:5-4(a) might indicate. Rule 5:5-4(a) says courts should ordinarily grant requests for argument on “substantive and non-routine discovery motions.” However, the appellate court found that denial is proper if there is no factual dispute, and even when there is one, if the motion is “deficient on its face” or fails to properly present “substantive” issues. Oral argument may be denied even where a substantive issue like custody, support or alimony is raised. The case in which the rule was announced is Palombi v. Palombi, A-2189-02, where a motion seeking modification of financial obligations was filed without a current and a prior case information statement pursuant to Rule 5:5-4(a). Because the filing was deficient on its face, and the deficiencies were evidentiary in nature, they were not capable of being cured at oral argument, said the court.

CONNECTICUT

Marital Asset Distribution Is Final Word

In a case involving the asset distribution of a law firm owned jointly by a former husband and wife, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the definition of certain firm assets described in the couple's settlement agreement was res judicata, as it had been dealt with by a court in the couple's marital dissolution action. Weiss v. Weiss, — A.2d —-, 2010 WL 2722724 (Conn. 7/20/10). One provision of the divorce settlement agreement stated that the wife would receive a certain percentage of the firm's earnings from personal injury actions, while another described how much the wife's share would be of a particular workers' compensation action then pending. No other mention was made of workers' comp case proceeds. The ex-wife was unhappy, however, when she later learned that the firm's “personal injury” claims did not, according to the court, include the firm's workers' compensation claims. She then sued her ex-husband in federal court claiming breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and conversion; she wanted the court to award her what she considered her share of the proceeds of the firm's workers' compensation actions. While the federal case was pending, the ex-husband sought a declaration from state court seeking clarification of the dissolution judgment, specifically asking if the ex-wife had waived any claim over workers' compensation case proceeds by entering into the settlement agreement. The court clarified that she had, and the ex-wife appealed.

In siding with and granting summary judgment to the ex-husband, the Supreme Court of Connecticut noted that, under the doctrine of res judicata, a claim or cause of action includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction. LaSalla v. Doctor's Assocs. Inc., 278 Conn. 578 (2006). In this action, the wife sought a remedy against the defendant with regard to a claim that the plaintiff had made previously ' namely, that she was entitled to a certain portion of the marital estate, which included the assets of the parties' law firm. That her current claim was more specific in that she asked for proceeds from the ex-husband's workers' compensation cases did not preclude the application of res judicata because both actions arose from the same transaction.

NEW JERSEY

Fight Over Gay Marriage Postponed

New Jersey's Supreme Court had not yet agreed to hear an appeal by a coalition of gay rights groups seeking legalized same-sex marriage in New Jersey, but both proponents and opponents were prepared, on the assumption that it would. On July 20, in front of the State House in Trenton, the two sides held opposing rallies. Before the court was a motion in aid of litigants' rights, filed in March by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which claimed the legislature did not adhere to the court's 2006 mandate in Lewis v. Harris , 188 N.J. 415, to grant same-sex couples the same rights as married heterosexuals.

On July 26, however, an evenly divided Supreme Court declared it would not take on the issue. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, joined by Justices Helen Hoens and Robert Rivera-Soto, said there is not enough of a “trial-like” record to hear the motion to enforce litigants' rights. “Plaintiffs' motion is therefore denied without prejudice to plaintiffs filing an action in Superior Court and seeking to create a record there,” Rabner said. Justices Barry Albin, Jaynee LaVecchia and Virginia Long dissented, saying that while a full record does not exist, oral arguments would have helped the Court lay out a plan of action.

Oral Argument May Be Denied in Family Cases if Motion Is Deficient

New Jersey's Appellate Division held in July that Family Court judges have more leeway to deny oral argument than Court Rule 5:5-4(a) might indicate. Rule 5:5-4(a) says courts should ordinarily grant requests for argument on “substantive and non-routine discovery motions.” However, the appellate court found that denial is proper if there is no factual dispute, and even when there is one, if the motion is “deficient on its face” or fails to properly present “substantive” issues. Oral argument may be denied even where a substantive issue like custody, support or alimony is raised. The case in which the rule was announced is Palombi v. Palombi, A-2189-02, where a motion seeking modification of financial obligations was filed without a current and a prior case information statement pursuant to Rule 5:5-4(a). Because the filing was deficient on its face, and the deficiencies were evidentiary in nature, they were not capable of being cured at oral argument, said the court.

CONNECTICUT

Marital Asset Distribution Is Final Word

In a case involving the asset distribution of a law firm owned jointly by a former husband and wife, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the definition of certain firm assets described in the couple's settlement agreement was res judicata, as it had been dealt with by a court in the couple's marital dissolution action. Weiss v. Weiss, — A.2d —-, 2010 WL 2722724 (Conn. 7/20/10). One provision of the divorce settlement agreement stated that the wife would receive a certain percentage of the firm's earnings from personal injury actions, while another described how much the wife's share would be of a particular workers' compensation action then pending. No other mention was made of workers' comp case proceeds. The ex-wife was unhappy, however, when she later learned that the firm's “personal injury” claims did not, according to the court, include the firm's workers' compensation claims. She then sued her ex-husband in federal court claiming breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and conversion; she wanted the court to award her what she considered her share of the proceeds of the firm's workers' compensation actions. While the federal case was pending, the ex-husband sought a declaration from state court seeking clarification of the dissolution judgment, specifically asking if the ex-wife had waived any claim over workers' compensation case proceeds by entering into the settlement agreement. The court clarified that she had, and the ex-wife appealed.

In siding with and granting summary judgment to the ex-husband, the Supreme Court of Connecticut noted that, under the doctrine of res judicata, a claim or cause of action includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction. LaSalla v. Doctor's Assocs. Inc. , 278 Conn. 578 (2006). In this action, the wife sought a remedy against the defendant with regard to a claim that the plaintiff had made previously ' namely, that she was entitled to a certain portion of the marital estate, which included the assets of the parties' law firm. That her current claim was more specific in that she asked for proceeds from the ex-husband's workers' compensation cases did not preclude the application of res judicata because both actions arose from the same transaction.