This September will mark two years since the New Jersey legislature made sweeping revisions to the state’s alimony statutes. The legislature amended the alimony statutes in order to address several pressing issues incluing:
Downzoning of lands at the municipal level as a way of limiting development and preserving open space and agricultural land has been taking place in New Jersey for years. Downzoning is the practice of increasing the required lot size for the development of a single family home or, in other words, reducing the density of development permitted under the existing zoning ordinances. These zoning ordinances are typically “hot button” issues which often spawn litigation regarding their validity under the Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq.). Most downzoning litigation does not involve a challenge to the validity of the ordinance as a whole (although that certainly does occur), but in most instances involve a challenge to the validity of the ordinance as applied to one or more specific parcels of property. While a zoning ordinance may be valid in general terms that does not preclude a judicial determination that the ordinance in question is not valid as applied to a specific and distinct parcel of property.
New Jersey law on this issue began to coalesce with the case of Bow & Arrow Manor v. Town of West Orange, 63 N.J. 335 (1973) in which the New Jersey Supreme Court found that although zoning ordinance changes regarding the uses permitted in various zones were valid in general, they were nevertheless invalid as applied to specific properties that were the subject of the lawsuit. Fourteen years later, in Zilinsky v. Zoning Bd. of Adj. of Verona, 105 N.J. 363 (1987), the New Jersey Supreme Court sustained the validity of an ordinance imposing off-street parking requirements in a residential zone and, more particularly, the requirement that one of the two required off street parking spaces had to be provided in a garage. While these two cases did not directly deal with downzoning issues, the legal principles developed in these cases regarding whether or not a zoning ordinance provision was sustainable formed the foundation for the later review of zoning ordinances involving downzoning.
In Riggs v. Long Beach Township, 109 N.J. 601 (1988) the New Jersey Supreme Court invalidated a zoning ordinance that changed the permitted density from 1 unit per five thousand square feet to 1 unit per ten thousand square feet. The court reasoned that the zoning ordinance was enacted for the purpose of depressing the value of the plaintiff’s land so that the municipality could acquire it cheaply. In doing so, the court developed a four part test for analyzing the validity of a zoning ordinance that is challenged:
New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act protects individuals in married, dating, cohabiting and co-parenting relationships from eighteen categories of criminal acts by their significant others, including harassment and coercion. In C.G. v. E.G., an unpublished decision dated June 30, 2016, Judge Lawrence Jones, Superior Court of New Jersey, Ocean County, reiterated that domestic violence is not limited to physical abuse and can include acts of economic harassment and coercion.
In C.G. v. E.G., the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had threatened her in text messages, had called her workplace without her consent to bother her employer and her employer’s wife, and had embarrassed the plaintiff by alleging that she and the employer were having an affair. The Court held that “economic harassment” includes purposeful acts of the defendant which are intended to either: (a) impair or obstruct a plaintiff’s actual or prospective job or job-related duties; or (b) threatening to do so with the purpose of controlling the plaintiff, and/or pressuring or intimidating the plaintiff into submitting to defendant’s demands or wishes.
Judge Jones opined that the methods of accomplishing economic harassment and coercion could include, but are not limited to:
Domestic violence is a serious issue concerning all segments of our society. It affects couples, their children, friends, relatives and employers. New Jersey courts take allegations of domestic violence very seriously and have established protocols in place to protect victims.
In order for an act to be considered a domestic violence offense the incident must be committed against an individual designated under the law as a protected person. Generally it is assumed that domestic incidents occur between husband and wife. While this may often be the case, there are other situations and relationships that can qualify for protection under the law. In order for an individual to obtain court ordered protection from acts of domestic violence, the violent act must have occurred between two people who have or have had one of the following relationships:
You have a commitment from your Lender; certainly you should be able to close in one week, Right? Wrong. When closing a loan, there are many areas that can derail you from a timely closing. One area of particular concern and which often delays closing, is with respect to the Lender’s insurance requirements. To reduce discrepancies or issues leading up to closing, and to ensure that closing occurs as expeditiously as possible, it is important to understand the Lender’s insurance expectations and requirements at the outset; specifically, as set forth in the Lender’s commitment letter.
For commercial mortgage transactions, Lenders typically require a) property insurance on a “special form of loss” policy, previously referred to as an “all risk” policy, and b) commercial general liability insurance. For the property insurance, the lender will require the property to be insured at least in the amount of the loan and it will require a standard mortgage clause that names it as the mortgagee. Prudent lenders also typically require that the policy must be endorsed as “lender’s loss payable,” which gives the lender the right to receive the loss payment on a claim even if the insured has failed to comply with certain terms of the policy or because the loss was occasioned by the insured’s wrongful acts. The liability insurance policy should name the Lender as an additional insured and should waive all rights of subrogation against the mortgage lender. Often times, an insurance broker will claim that the lender has no insurable interest, and therefore cannot be added as an additional insured on the commercial general liability policy. The lender is concerned that if its borrower suffers an uninsured loss that is beyond its ability to absorb, the borrower’s continued viability is at stake. Furthermore, even though the likelihood of a claim against a mortgagee for injuries incurred at the mortgaged property is small, the lender wants to reduce its chance that its own insurance will be required to pay a claim that would be covered by the borrower’s required insurance. As an additional insured, the lender is entitled to the benefits of the policy but is not charged with the obligations of the named insured, moreover, the insurer cannot exercise subrogation rights against its own insured.
To prove you have the correct insurance in place, the Lender typically requires specific types of insurance proofs to be produced and approved prior to closing. In the past, certificates of insurance were provided to Lenders in the form of an ACORD 27 (for residential property) or ACORD 28 (for commercial property) as evidence of property insurance, and an ACORD 25, as evidence of commercial general liability insurance. In 2006, the ACORDs were revised to indicate that they do not grant any rights in coverage to the policy holder or to the mortgagee, additional insured, certificate holder, lender, etc. Essentially, these certificates are often prepared by insurance brokers as a summary of what coverage is purported to exist, but they do not prove that there is coverage under a particular policy and they do not grant coverage. This essentially makes these certificates or evidences of insurance ineffective in the risk management arena. They are merely for informational purposes only and their validity and accuracy cannot be verified without the underlying policy documents. As a result, many lenders now require, in addition to the ACORD forms, that as part of the normal due diligence process, a copy of the policy be produced and reviewed by the lender and the lender’s insurance advisor. In order to avoid delays, the ACORD forms and policy documents should be provided to the lender well in advance of closing so that the lender has sufficient time to process and review the insurance.
THE FOURTH QUARTER OF 2015 saw two striking pronouncements on criminal prosecutions and civil actions against individuals. The first, referred to unofficially as the “Yates Memo,” came in the form of new guidance to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and all United States attorneys on individual accountability. The second came in the form of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the DOJ and the Department of Labor (DOL). The MOU was designed to bolster the environmental side of worker safety violations, by scrutinizing environmental records.
Armed with two new tools, prosecutors are now equipped to examine violations involving worker safety using criminal environmental statutes. Thus, if the government accuses a company of worker safety violations, the company may expect a close analysis of their environmental record. The MOU itself is the next logical step of the DOJ’s strengthening its enforcement cases involving worker safety violations under environmental statutes. With the new understanding between the DOJ and the DOL, civil division attorneys are to share information with criminal division attorneys. Moreover, the MOU requires that criminal division attorneys explain to a supervisor why they did not seek charges against an individual company wrongdoer.
What circumstances brought about the new push?
For many couples experiencing marital difficulties and facing the end of their relationship, divorce mediation can be an appropriate alternative to litigation. While mediation may not fit every situation, for couples who are prepared to address all of the issues related to their relationship, a mediator can often assist in achieving a resolution. In mediation there are no determinations as to who will be the “winner” and who will be the “loser” as the mediator has no interest in advocating the position of one party in favor of the other. A mediator’s role is to determine what common ground can be achieved between the parties.
Mediation can cover all divorce issues such as custody, parental time-sharing with respect to children, the amount and type of alimony, child support obligations, the disposition of the marital home, the division of pensions and other retirement benefits and the equitable distribution of marital assets.
Couples can avail themselves of mediation before either spouse files for divorce, while they are in the process of litigating their divorce and even after their divorce has been finalized. Some couples choose to take a step back and “pause” their divorce litigation and retain a mediator to assist in the process. Increasingly I see that divorced individuals are mediating the disputes that naturally arise in the years following their divorce. Ex-spouses will attempt to mediate such issues as responsibility for college costs for their children, the increase or decrease in alimony or child support based on a change in circumstances post-divorce, and the finalization of pension related issues.
Are you planning on starting or relocating a business? As part of your planning process you need to do a careful analysis of the local zoning ordinances governing your proposed location. The threshold question is whether the proposed use is permitted in the zone in which the property is located. There is often no simple answer to that question, and the answer will affect not only where the owner needs to file for the necessary approvals, but will greatly impact the time required to obtain approvals and the chances of success. Municipal ordinances vary widely in their definitions of permitted and excluded uses, and often do not contain clear definitions as to the permitted uses. Many times ordinances include blanket statements providing that uses not expressly permitted are deemed to be excluded. In addition, uses which did not exist when the ordinance was drafted can be a gray area.
There are several steps which should be taken at the outset to ensure the best opportunity to obtain the required approvals in an efficient and cost-effective way. The owner, his architect, engineer and attorney, should jointly do the following:
1. Review the applicable ordinance and all definitions.
On May 11, OSHA promulgated a new regulation imposing additional reporting requirements on employers. All non-exempted employers are already require to report information on work related illnesses and injuries to OSHA on paper forms, however, the new rule requires that certain submissions now be made electronically.
The newly promulgated regulation establishes three different categories of employers and imposes different electronic reporting requirements on each. Those non-exempted employers with 250 or more employees at an establishment must electronically submit certain information from the three reporting forms established by OSHA: 1) Form 300 – Log of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses; 2) Form 300A – Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses; and 3) Form 301 – Injury and Illness Incident Report.
Non-exempted employers with more than 20 employees, but less than 250 employees at an establishment, and who are engaged in a business designated in Appendix to the new rule, are required to electronically file information from Form 300A. Employers in this category include, among others, construction and manufacturing industries and many retail operations, such as department and furniture stores.
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates that employees be paid one and one-half times their standard hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. There are several exceptions to that overtime requirement, including an exemption for “white collar workers” – – those classified as Executive, Administrative and Professional employees. Pursuant to its rulemaking authority, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) adopted a two- part test that must be met before an employee can be properly categorized as Executive, Administrative and Professional employee exempt from overtime requirements. . Under the test, the employee must meet both a “duties test” and a “salary basis test” to satisfy one of the white collar exemptions. On May 16, 2016 the DOL finally issued long-anticipated new regulations that substantially increase the salary basis requirement to meet the white collar exemptions, resulting in many employees being stripped of their previously exempt status and now making them eligible for overtime compensation.
In the 1970s the DOL adopted regulations mandating that all Executive, Administrative and Professional employees had to earn a minimum of $455 per week, or $23,660, per year to satisfy the salary basis test for a white collar exemption, a salary level that remained untouched for decades. However, under the new regulations that will take effect on December 1, 2016, the salary basis test has been essentially doubled to $913 per week, or $47,476 per year. Regardless of whether the employee can satisfy the duties test for a white collar exemption, if the employee’s compensation falls below this increased salary basis, the exemption from overtime requirements is not met.
Another target of the new regulations is the Highly Compensated Employee exemption. Presently, certain highly-compensated employees were exempt from the overtime requirements so long as they were paid at least $100,000 and satisfied a less-stringent duties test. Under the new regulations, the minimum salary basis test for that exemption has been substantially increased to $134,004.
Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C. Firm News & Events