Publications — Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C. Firm News & Events

Trusts in New Jersey – Understanding the Duties and Responsibilities of New Jersey Trustees

Published on: October 15, 2024 | by Anne Marie Robbins

As a general rule, trusts are created in one of two ways. Inter vivos trusts are established by an agreement or declaration during the life of the creator (called the “grantor” or “settlor” of the trust). Testamentary trusts are created in the will of a testator and do not exist until the testator dies, the will is probated, and the executor of the will transfers assets to fund the trust. Testamentary trusts are irrevocable and cannot be changed except in limited circumstances, whereas inter vivos trusts may be revocable (i.e., may be amended or terminated) or irrevocable.

In New Jersey, a trustee is entrusted with significant responsibilities that require not only the proper management and distribution of assets but also the fulfillment of strict fiduciary obligations. Whether the trustee is an individual or a corporate entity, the role demands a high level of diligence, integrity, and accountability. For beneficiaries, understanding a trustee’s duties is essential to ensure that their rights are protected, while for trustees, knowing the full extent of their responsibilities is crucial for effective administration.

The trustee’s role lasts the length of the trust’s duration, or until the trustee sooner resigns, dies, or is removed.

Heat Stress: OSHA’s Proposed New Rule and What it Means for Employers

Published on: September 9, 2024 | by James K. Estabrook and Gozde Celik

On August 30, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published in the Federal Register its proposed regulations for Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Settings, delivering on the Biden administration’s three-year long promise to have the agency put forward a rule to protect workers from heat related injuries and deaths. The proposed measure would be the first comprehensive federal regulation to address the recent increase in heat related emergencies occurring across a large swath of workplaces, including farms, construction sites, warehouses, and commercial kitchens.

Industry Backlash and Legal Uncertainty

Although many states have adopted or proposed their own heat safety regulations, OSHA’s proposed rules, due to their wide application and extensive requirements, have received more backlash than their state counterparts, indicating that the implementation of the rules is likely to face many challenges. The proposed regulations come in during the tail end of President Biden’s first term and are also vulnerable to an administration change where Former President Donald Trump has expressed a contrary intent to roll back on OSHA’s regulations on private industry, thereby indicating that his administration could block the rule’s implementation. Additionally, the extent of OSHA’s, as well as other federal agencies’, ability to rule make and enforce their regulations has been questioned by the Supreme Court in its decision overturning the Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which places the proposed rule into even more uncertainty.

Not So Fast: Texas District Court Blocks FTC’s Ban on Noncompete Agreements

Published on: August 22, 2024 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) final rule that effectively banned the use of noncompete agreements by U.S. employers. The ruling comes just in time for employers facing the inability to enter into or enforce noncompete agreements when the rule was slated to go into effect on September 4, 2024.

The Texas court reasoned that the FTC exceeded its constitutional authority by proposing “arbitrary and capricious” sweeping prohibitions against noncompete agreements rather than a more targeted ban on specific noncompete provisions that are deemed unfair competitive practices. In addition, the court noted that only Congress is authorized to issue substantive rules banning non-competes, whereas the FTC’s authority is limited to procedural rules aimed at implementing legislation passed by Congress, adding “[t]he role of an administrative agency is to do as told by Congress, not to do what the agency thinks it should do.”

Prior Judicial Proceedings:

CCA 202352018 – A Cautionary Tale

Published on: June 25, 2024 | by Mary Patricia Magee

Since passage of the Uniform Trust Code in New Jersey in 2016, planners now have an established procedure to modify or terminate an irrevocable trust, and it is undoubtedly a valuable tool. Clients frequently have trusts that could be made better if one or two changes were made. However, while attractive, the modification or termination of an irrevocable trust so that the trust will accommodate circumstances unforeseen when the trust was created, can have unintended gift tax consequences.

It was just such a situation that a recent Memorandum issued by the Chief Counsel for the IRS, CCA 202352018 (hereafter the CCA or Memorandum), addresses. In that Memorandum the grantor of the trust established an irrevocable trust for her child for the child’s life. The trustee had the power to distribute income and principal to the child, in the trustee’s discretion, and on the child’s death the trustee was directed to distribute the proceeds to the child’s descendants. The grantor had no right to income or principal from the trust and essentially had relinquished all control over the assets in the trust. As such, the grantor appeared to have successfully removed the assets in the trust from her taxable estate.

The trust included a provision that made the trust income taxable to the grantor under section 671 of the Internal Revenue Code. Using such a provision in a trust is actually very popular. Because the trust will not pay any income taxes, the trust can grow more quickly. In effect, it is as if the grantor is making a tax-free gift to the trust each year in the amount of the tax the trust would otherwise have paid. Sometime after the trust in the CCA was operational, however, the grantor no longer wished to pay those income taxes and instead sought to have the trust reimburse her for those tax payments.

Supreme Court Ruling Sparks Urgency in Reassessing Buy-Sell Agreements for Closely Held Companies

Published on: June 25, 2024 | by Anne Marie Robbins

Ensuring the seamless transition of ownership and safeguarding a company’s stability is of paramount importance to any closely held business. Buy-sell agreements play a crucial role in achieving these objectives. These agreements dictate the terms under which shares of the business can be bought or sold, typically triggered by events such as death, disability, retirement, or voluntary departure of an owner. A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court necessitates that owners of closely held businesses review their buy-sell agreements, particularly those that involve using life insurance proceeds to purchase a deceased shareholder’s interest in the company.

In a unanimous decision issued on June 6, 2024, the Supreme Court held that life insurance proceeds payable to a corporation are includible in the corporation’s value for Federal Estate Tax purposes, with no offset allowed for the obligation to purchase a deceased shareholder’s interest. Estate of Connelly v. United States, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) (No. 23-146, June 6, 2024).

Michael and Thomas Connelly were the owners of Crown C Supply, a building supply corporation (the “Company”). Michael was the CEO and owned almost 80% of the stock, with Thomas owning the rest. The brothers had entered into a buy-sell agreement that was to be effective in the event of their deaths. Under the agreement, the surviving brother was given the option to purchase the deceased brother’s shares. If he did not do so, the Company itself would be required to redeem the shares. The Company obtained life insurance policies of $3.5 million on each brother.

Employers Should Audit Exempt Classifications in Response to USDOL’s Increased Salary Requirements to Qualify For Overtime Exemption

Published on: May 17, 2024 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

On April 24, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a long anticipated final rule increasing the minimum salary requirements that “white collar” and highly compensated employees must meet to qualify for exemption from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). It is estimated that the rule could impact up to 4 million employees who may now be eligible for overtime pay unless employers increase their salaries to meet the new requirements.

Two-Phased Increase for White Collar Exceptions

The DOL’s rule announced a phased-in increase in the salary basis test applicable to the white collar exemptions for executive, administrative and learned professional employees.

NJ Supreme Court Limits Use of Non-Disparagement Provisions in Employment Settlement Agreements

Published on: May 9, 2024 | by Joshua L. Weiner

In a unanimous opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that a non-disparagement provision in a settlement agreement that prevented a former employee from revealing details about allegations of sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation was against public policy and cannot be enforced.

The plaintiff, a former police sergeant, appealed a trial court order enforcing a non-disparagement provision in a 2020 settlement agreement reached in her employment discrimination case. Under the non-disparagement clause, the plaintiff was barred from making any statements “regarding the past behavior of the parties” that would “tend to disparage or impugn the reputation of any party.” The agreement clearly stated that the provision extended to statements to the media, government offices and the general public. After the settlement was reached, the plaintiff was interviewed by a reporter for NBC’s Channel 4 News, where she stated that the police department had not changed because “it’s the good ol’ boy system,” among other things. The department and various officers then filed a motion to enforce the non-disparagement provisions of the agreement.

The trial court granted the defendants’ motion, ordering the plaintiff not to give further interviews or to make disparaging statements. The judge declined to award the roughly $23,000 in damages sought by the defendants but awarded counsel fees of $4,917.50 for the plaintiff’s breach of the clause. The Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that while the terms of the non-disparagement provision were enforceable, the plaintiff did not break them during the television interview.

FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Non-Compete Agreements in the U.S.

Published on: April 26, 2024 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

On April 23rd, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved a final rule that effectively bans the use of non-compete agreements by U.S. based employers. The final rule is substantially similar to the proposed rule announced in January 2023, and represents a sweeping change in the ability of employers to rely upon preexisting as well as future non-compete clauses to protect against unfair competitive practices. The final rule will go into effect 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which is expected shortly.

The final rule defines a non-compete clause as any agreement that prohibits, penalizes or functions to prevent a worker from (1) seeking or accepting work in the U.S. with another employer or (2) operating a business in the U.S., after a separation of employment.

The Scope of the FTC Ban

SCOTUS Ruling Likely to Spawn More Challenges to Job Actions

Published on: April 19, 2024 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

In its April 17th, 2024, ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the United States Supreme Court significantly eased the burden for employees challenging mandatory job transfers as a discriminatory action in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court’s ruling makes it clear that to advance such a claim, the employee need only show that the transfer resulted in “some harm” rather than “significant harm” to the terms and conditions of employment. The Court’s groundbreaking decision resolves a split among the circuit courts, with numerous circuits applying a heightened standard that required proof of “substantial harm” to the employee.

The Challenged Transfer

Police Sergeant Jatonya Muldrow worked for nine years as a plainclothes officer in the St. Louis Police Department’s specialized Intelligence Division. After a new Division Commander was hired, Muldrow was reassigned to a uniformed position in another district at the same rank and pay, against her wishes. Muldrow claimed that because she was no longer in the Intelligence Division she lost her FBI status, department vehicle, and other perks. In addition, the transfer to the “less prestigious” uniform patrol changed her regular schedule to a rotating schedule that included weekend shifts. Muldrow claimed she was transferred because the new Commander wanted to replace her with a male officer, in violation of Title VII.

What to Expect Under the EEOC’s Final Regulation on the Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act

Published on: April 17, 2024 | by Kathleen M. Connelly

On April 15, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued final regulations that clarify the obligation of employers to provide reasonable accommodation to pregnant workers under the Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act (PWFA) that went into effect in June 2023. While employers should review the final regulations linked here for further details, some highlights from new regulations are discussed below.

The Employer’s Obligations Under the PWFA:

The PWFA requires employers of 15 or more to provide reasonable accommodations “to the known limitations of a qualified employee related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship.” The regulations specify that employers are prohibited from: