Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NJ & CT News
CONNECTICUT
Oral Agreement to Alter Child Support Scheme Held Unenforceable
In Culver v. Culver, — A.3d —-, 127 Conn.App. 236, 2011 WL 781218 (Conn.App.3/15/11), the Appellate Court of Connecticut recently held that a couple's oral agreement to have the ex-husband pay his children's private school tuition in lieu of child support was unenforceable, so he owed his ex-wife back child support. The court refused to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel in the action, noting that the father knew or should have known that, under Connecticut law, a change to a court-approved stipulation concerning child support must be authorized by the court. (He had, in fact, drawn up an earlier amendment to the stipulation, which both parties signed, and which was duly filed with the court to modify the dissolution judgment.) Therefore, although the father had paid nearly half a million dollars in school tuition for his children since the oral agreement was made, he was ordered to pay the full $225,000 in back child support.
NEW JERSEY
No Private Right of Action for State Child Support
Registry Mismanagement
The federal government, pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, pays the State of New Jersey to operate a computerized child support enforcement system. The system keeps track of parents who are not paying their court-ordered child support. Although he was not in arrears, the plaintiff in Stianchi v. New Jersey Dept. of Human Services, 2011 WL 903385 (N.J.Super.A.D.), Brian Stianchi, was arrested for failure to pay his child support obligation. He had to pay $22,590 to secure his release from jail. Another erroneous “Notice of Arrears” was issued a week later; this time the mistake was corrected after he hired an attorney to straighten out the Probation Department. Stianchi brought a class action complaint against several state entities and the individuals heading them, alleging, inter alia, that mismanagement of the database led to violations of his and others' federal and state civil rights. He also asserted a cause of action for the state's failure to comply with the federal statute compelling states to create and maintain state registries of child support deadbeats. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and Stianchi appealed. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed, holding that Title IV-D did not confer a private right of action on the plaintiffs.
CONNECTICUT
Oral Agreement to Alter Child Support Scheme Held Unenforceable
In Culver v. Culver, — A.3d —-, 127 Conn.App. 236, 2011 WL 781218 (Conn.App.3/15/11), the Appellate Court of Connecticut recently held that a couple's oral agreement to have the ex-husband pay his children's private school tuition in lieu of child support was unenforceable, so he owed his ex-wife back child support. The court refused to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel in the action, noting that the father knew or should have known that, under Connecticut law, a change to a court-approved stipulation concerning child support must be authorized by the court. (He had, in fact, drawn up an earlier amendment to the stipulation, which both parties signed, and which was duly filed with the court to modify the dissolution judgment.) Therefore, although the father had paid nearly half a million dollars in school tuition for his children since the oral agreement was made, he was ordered to pay the full $225,000 in back child support.
NEW JERSEY
No Private Right of Action for State Child Support
Registry Mismanagement
The federal government, pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, pays the State of New Jersey to operate a computerized child support enforcement system. The system keeps track of parents who are not paying their court-ordered child support. Although he was not in arrears, the plaintiff in Stianchi v. New Jersey Dept. of Human Services, 2011 WL 903385 (N.J.Super.A.D.), Brian Stianchi, was arrested for failure to pay his child support obligation. He had to pay $22,590 to secure his release from jail. Another erroneous “Notice of Arrears” was issued a week later; this time the mistake was corrected after he hired an attorney to straighten out the Probation Department. Stianchi brought a class action complaint against several state entities and the individuals heading them, alleging, inter alia, that mismanagement of the database led to violations of his and others' federal and state civil rights. He also asserted a cause of action for the state's failure to comply with the federal statute compelling states to create and maintain state registries of child support deadbeats. The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and Stianchi appealed. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed, holding that Title IV-D did not confer a private right of action on the plaintiffs.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?