Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decisions of Interest
Husband Estopped from Claiming Marital Assets Need Distribution
A man who signed a sworn affidavit to the effect that he was indigent has been estopped from claiming his divorce should not be finalized because issues of equitable distribution have not yet been settled. J.F. v. A.F., N.Y.L.J. Aug. 18, 2014, Pg. p.17, col.3 Vol. 252 No. 33.
In a divorce action, the wife moved for summary judgment on her application for divorce based on irreconcilable differences in accordance with Domestic Relations Law (DRL) ' 170(7). The husband was serving a four-to-12-year prison sentence at the time of the divorce proceedings. In conjunction with his criminal case, the husband had previously sworn in an affidavit accompanying his application for poor person status that he had “no savings, property, assets or income,” save for his marital home, which was in foreclosure. The court in the divorce action found that, having made this sworn statement asserting that he had no assets, the husband was estopped from requesting that the divorce be held up pending resolution of equitable distribution issues.
Despite its holding on the issue of abeyance pending equitable distribution, the court declined the wife's motion for summary judgment, as issues of distribution of marital debt remained to be determined.
'
Husband Estopped from Claiming Marital Assets Need Distribution
A man who signed a sworn affidavit to the effect that he was indigent has been estopped from claiming his divorce should not be finalized because issues of equitable distribution have not yet been settled. J.F. v. A.F., N.Y.L.J. Aug. 18, 2014, Pg. p.17, col.3 Vol. 252 No. 33.
In a divorce action, the wife moved for summary judgment on her application for divorce based on irreconcilable differences in accordance with Domestic Relations Law (DRL) ' 170(7). The husband was serving a four-to-12-year prison sentence at the time of the divorce proceedings. In conjunction with his criminal case, the husband had previously sworn in an affidavit accompanying his application for poor person status that he had “no savings, property, assets or income,” save for his marital home, which was in foreclosure. The court in the divorce action found that, having made this sworn statement asserting that he had no assets, the husband was estopped from requesting that the divorce be held up pending resolution of equitable distribution issues.
Despite its holding on the issue of abeyance pending equitable distribution, the court declined the wife's motion for summary judgment, as issues of distribution of marital debt remained to be determined.
'
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?