#382 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for June 7, 2012, Part 1 of 3
June 6, 2013
I LOVE the first case because, as much as I might rag on the Third Department for what is, in my opinion, cutting corners in certain areas and on certain kinds of cases (SORA appeals? Anyone? Bueller?), they make me proud when I see them adamantly demand strict compliance with the due process requirements of statutes.
The second case is a no-brainer and pertains to the old edict: CAREFULLY DRAFT THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT. Why? Because you will be held to it, more likely than not.
Continue reading "#382 Third Department Caselaw Round-Up for June 7, 2012, Part 1 of 3" »
I thought it might be nice to finish off the caselaw round-ups for the month of May, 2012, since it's now June, 2013 (d'oh!). Work has kept me from posting more often. I also got addicted to reading the five available A Game of Thrones books for a month as well (for 4,200+ pages, they were a very quick read!). Anyway, I hope to be back to posting at least once a day, and maybe more.
First, some housekeeping issues. I have not published any blog posts since May 3, 2013, because I have been quite busy. Apart from my personal and professional obligations, I am in the midst of overhauling both this web site and the blog as well.
The first case illustrates the rarely seen doctrine of equitable estoppel. However, when this doctrine appears, it always seems to be in the context of paternity, at least in family court proceedings. The crux of this doctrine, in family law, is this: what is the child's perspective?
The first case is the classic application of Tropea to the fact pattern. Mom wants to relocate. Dad opposes the relocation. Mom has a number of factors she needs to prove in order to be able to relocate.
We'll call this one Bad Father, Good Father.
The first case asks more questions than it answers. It also illustrates the dangers of an inartfully drafted stipulation of settlement that makes assumptions about the law.
Sometimes, things are not always as they appear. And, sometimes, decisions are not as clear as they really need to be. And, sometimes, it makes one wonder what the hell is really going on.
The first case illustrates what occurs in an FCA Article 10 case when a non-final order is appealed and then the underlying case is resolved. It also shows the importance of appealing dispositive orders.
The first case involves a very stupid person who rolled the dice and lost. Big time.
The first case is concerns how joint legal custody can easily become sole legal custody when one parent decides that they are not going to be cooperative with the other parent.
The first case involves ... another sex offender. Jesus, they're everywhere! I think you know the drill: affirmed.
The first case is one concerning a sex offender appealing his risk assessment level. Silly sex offender.
The first case is short and sweet. Here's an idea: if you don't want to be found in willful violation of an order of child support, then it is probably best not to admit to being in arrears on the record. D'oh!
The first case illustrates the confluence of money, estrangement, and counsel fees in family court.
