Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Honesty Issues and Imputed Income
In Part One of this article, we looked at some of the factors courts use in determining whether to impute income to a divorcing spouse, and how much. But one of the most powerful influences on a court's decision to impute income may be its suspicion that a party simply is not being as forthcoming with the truth as he or she should be.
Supporting Spouse's Income Claims Not Credible
Often, it has been the parties' standard of living which had led courts to impute a higher income than reported because the court deems such income necessary to afford the historical expenditures. For example, in C.R.Z. v. D.E.Z, 200558/09, NYLJ 1202503772255 (Supreme Court Suffolk County, Referee A. Jeffrey Grob), discussed in Part One, the husband made his living as a diamond merchant, marketing stones under several corporate entities. He gave testimony with respect to the sources of his income, which the court found “conflicted and equivocal.” The court held that it need not rely upon a party's own account of his or her finances, but may impute income based on the party's past income or demonstrated future potential earnings. Citing Brown v. Brown, 239 AD2d 535 (2d Dept. 1997) (court may impute income to a party based on employment history, future earning capacity, educational background, or money received from friends and relatives) and Collins v. Collins, 241 AD2d 725, 727 (3d Dept. 1997) (where a party's account is not believable, the court may impute a true or potential income higher than alleged). See also 1 308 A.D.2d 435 (2nd Dept. 2003) (“here, the court, in an exercise of its discretionary authority, finds it appropriate to impute income to the defendant based, inter alia , on the defendant's transparent efforts to conceal his true income to avoid familial obligations.”).
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.