X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Vol. 3 No. 96 DECISIONS RELEASED MAY 23, 1995 ATTORNEY/CLIENT 04-2-5695 Nathan Conklin, et al. v. Hannoch, Weisman, P.C., App. Div. (11 pp.) In a case alleging that defendants committed legal malpractice by not sufficiently explaining to clients the risks of executing a mortgage subordination agreement, where jury found that the defendants had committed malpractice and had not sufficiently explained such risks, but then found that the malpractice was not the cause of clients’ damages, the judge correctly concluded that the causation issues must be retried because his instructions on intervening causes may have misled the jury. [Approved for publication May 23, 1995.] [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] CIVIL PROCEDURE — ENTIRE CONTROVERSY DOCTRINE 07-2-5696 Joseph Rolandelli v. Robert W. Keller, et al., App. Div. (10 pp.) Where plaintiff had attempted to assert a claim in the Chancery Division by an amended complaint, and did not appeal the Chancery judge’s ruling prohibiting the amendments as abuses of discretion, the failure to appeal the determination bars plaintiff from subsequently asserting the same claim in a separate action. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 10-1-5697 Laura Maisonet v. N.J. Dept. of Human Svcs., Div. of Family Development, Supreme Ct. (20 pp.) The failure of the Appellate Division to exercise original jurisdiction and hear food stamp recipient’s federal claim for attorney’s fees does not violate the supremacy clause of the state constitution, since the only state court required by that clause to hear a federal fee claim is the Law Division. [Available online in N.J. Full-Text Decisions.] FAMILY LAW 20-2-5698 Arlene Sherma v. Howard Stump, App. Div. (4 pp.) The fact that the 18-year-old son had a part-time job while he attended college on a reduced schedule did not result in his full emancipation requiring the elimination of support, and father’s motion to have son declared emancipated was properly denied. 20-2-5699 Linda Scanlon v. Richard Scanlon, App. Div. (5 pp.) Although the husband should not have used self-help in deducting half the refinancing costs for the marital home from wife’s alimony payments, since the parties’ separation agreement contemplated that the refinancing’s closing costs would be borne equally by both parties, the judge erred in concluding that husband was not entitled to repayment, and matter is remanded for a computation of the repayment amount. 20-2-5700 Jean Motiel v. William Motiel, App. Div. (6 pp.) Where 18-year-old unemancipated daughter had $6,000 available to her to purchase a car, but father bought her an $8,000 car, there was no basis for the court to require wife to contribute or share in the cost of the more expensive vehicle or its insurance, or to order that wife pay husband’s counsel fees for bringing the motion to compel such payment, and the order compelling payment is reversed. LAND USE 26-2-5701 Anthony Minutillo, et al. v. Betty Lou Johannesen, App. Div. (6 pp.) Where previous variance applications were brought under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1) (hardship grounds), but the present application was brought under both that section and section c(2) (“the flexible provision”), previous variance denials do not constitute res judicata with regard to the present application, and granting of (c)(2) variance is affirmed. TAXATION 35-2-5702 Coastal Eagle Point Oil Co.v. West Deptford Twp. and Westville Borough, App. Div. (5 pp.) Where Tax Court had reduced the tax assessment on refinery for tax year 1987, and landowners filed a motion for freeze act relief for the tax years 1988 and 1989, there was sufficient evidence to justify a plenary hearing on whether a change in value occurred for the 1988 year, and freeze act relief for that year should not have been granted without such a hearing. WILLS, TRUSTS AND ESTATES 38-2-5703 In the Matter of the Estate of Charles Henry Kerr, Deceased, App. Div. (12 pp.) Where elderly sister sought to intervene in her deceased brother’s estate because she alleged that certain stocks were purchased with her wages, but put into her brother’s name because of family custom that the man of the family retain the finances, and where sister died before the trial, it was error to exclude sister’s certification and videotape, since they may be admissible under the hearsay rule exception embodied in N.J.R.E. 804(b)(6), and matter is remanded for a reconsideration of such admissibility. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 14-2-5704 State v. Terry Drummer, App. Div. (4 pp.) In a case where defendant, a driver of a vehicle in which drugs were found, was convicted for heroin possession, the trial court erred in excluding the written statement of the co-defendant (a passenger in the vehicle) admitting that the drugs were his alone, and conviction is reversed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.