Newark Business, Commercial and Family Law Blog

A New Jersey Court recently granted a motion filed by Anne P. Ward, Esq. on behalf of a condominium association and entered an Order appointing a Rent Receiver for a condominium unit left vacant by its owner. The owner had moved out of state and refused to pay maintenance fees or take any responsibility for the property. The unit was "underwater" inasmuch as its mortgage was greater than its market value. Since the owner was unable to sell the property, he apparently chose to simply abandon it and avoid his mortgage obligations.

In the recent case of D.W. v. R.W., the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that presumptive fathers who have a reasonable basis to question the paternity of a child can compel genetic testing even if it is contrary to the best interests of the child. The Court's decision reverses 20 years of case law in which the best interest of the child was always held to be the determining factor given the emotional trauma such testing could inflict upon the child. Previously, courts generally only ordered genetic testing upon the showing of clear and convincing evidence that it was in the best interests of the child.

Although the Court acknowledged that the best interests standard controls most decisions involving children in divorce and custody litigation, it deemed that standard inappropriate in the context of paternity challenges because "in many, if not most, cases where genetic testing is ordered to refute a presumption of paternity, some destabilization of the child's life is inevitable." The Court further pointed to several amendments to the New Jersey Parentage Act, N.J.S.A. 9:17-48(d), which governs when genetic testing can be ordered for purposes of proving paternity, that restrict a court's ability to deny it. Significantly, the Act does not mention the best interests standard. Rather, the Act currently states that genetic testing can only be denied for "good cause" without defining what constitutes it.

In an effort to clarify the standard, the Court identified several factors, including the interests of the child, that will determine whether a father's request for genetic testing can be denied. Those factors include: how long the person seeking the test has believed himself to be the father; how the possibility of non-paternity was discovered; the relationship between the child and the presumptive father as well as with the alleged father; the age of the child; and the child's interest in knowing his or her genetic background.

In D.W. v. R.W., the father (R.W.) learned that he might not be the father of the 19 year old he believed was his son when his wife confessed to having had an affair around the time the boy was conceived. The father sought paternity testing the following year in the divorce litigation that followed the disclosure. In the divorce action, the father filed a counterclaim for adultery and emotional distress. He also filed a third-party claim for support against the other man. Weighing all the factors, the Court reversed the prior denial of testing by the trial court and Appellate Division and compelled the son, currently 25, to undergo genetic testing to determine paternity. "This case is not about the wisdom of a father proceeding with a parentage action in the circumstances presented here, but about his legal right to do so under the statute," said Justice Barry Albin writing for the majority.

Contributed by Jeffrey W. Plaza, who is a partner of the firm practicing in the area of divorce and family law. 

On March 7, 2012, the Internal Revenue Service announced the expansion of its "Fresh Start" initiative to help struggling taxpayers by providing penalty relief to the unemployed and making installment payment agreements available to more people.

Under the new provisions, taxpayers who have been unemployed for at least 30 days will be able to avoid failure-to-pay penalties. In addition, installment agreements will be available to more people.

Generally, the new provisions will apply to taxpayers who earn less than $200,000 (joint filer) or $100,000 (single filer). This penalty relief will apply to taxpayers whose tax balance due does not exceed $50,000.

If you have any questions, contact Alan Ehrlich, Esq. at 973-854-6708 or Alan@epgp-law.com

In February 2012, the President released his federal budget proposals for fiscal year 2013. The revenue proposals include over 130 proposed tax changes for businesses and individuals, including estate and gift tax changes.

The budget's proposals relating to estate and gift tax include the following.

Restoration of transfer tax to 2009 levels. The estate and gift tax parameters as they applied during 2009 would be made permanent. The top tax rate would be 45% and the exclusion amount would be $3.5 million for estate taxes, and $1 million for gift taxes. These changes would apply after December 31, 2012.

Portable estate tax exclusion made permanent. The provision allowing a surviving spouse to use the deceased spouse's unused estate tax exclusion, which expires after December 31, 2012, would be made permanent.

Contact Alan Ehrlich at 973-854-6708 to discuss how these changes would affect your individual estate tax planning.