Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The New York case of Simkin v. Blank, N.Y.3d 46 52 (2012), infamous for its ties to Bernard Madoff, illustrates one of the common financial mistakes made in divorce. In this case, pursuant to a settlement agreement incorporated but not merged into their judgment of divorce, the parties retained respective ownership of separately titled properties, including a brokerage account in the husband's name, managed by the Madoff firm, which had an agreed-upon value of $5.4 million. To balance this exchange and effectuate what they believed to be a fair and reasonable division of marital property, the husband paid the wife $6.25 million, and transferred to her $368,000 in retirement assets to equalize their retirement holdings.
Approximately two and a half years later, the Madoff brokerage account was effectively rendered valueless when Madoff's Ponzi scheme was exposed. The husband asked the court to reform the agreement based on the doctrine of mutual mistake, but the court declined, stating: “This situation, however sympathetic, is more akin to a marital asset that unexpectedly loses value after dissolution of a marriage; the asset had value at the time of the settlement but the purported value did not remain consistent.” As the court emphasized, rescission or reformation of a property settlement is limited to “exceptional situations.” Id. at 52 (quoting Da Silva v. Musso, 53 N.Y.2d 543, 552 (1981)).
One Chance to Get It Right
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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?
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.