Professional legal support New Jersey, US from Sandy Ferner? Cohabitation is defined as an intimate personal relationship in which the couple shares duties and privileges normally associated with a marriage or civil union. That is the legal definition. When cohabitation exists, a former spouse has the ability to seek a termination or suspension of alimony that’s being paid. People often wonder how they can prove cohabitation. It’s not always an easy thing to prove. We look at things like social media. We will go on Facebook pages, and we’ll see if the couple is vacationing together, if they’re recognized in their social circles as a couple, if they’re at special events together. We will oftentimes hire a private investigator to conduct surveillance and go to a household and see if it’s a boyfriend that is mowing the lawn or doing repairs around the household or other kind of household chores that you would normally associate with a married couple or a civil union. Read extra info at John Sandy Ferner.
Legal tip today with Sandy Ferner : Sometimes our discovery demands, which our client faces and has to produce, are voluminous. Sometimes there are thousands of pages and rather than pay us to copy those, go do it yourself. Go to a Staples or go to a Kinko’s, if they even have Kinko’s. Bring your copies, do your homework. When we ask you to fill out things like a case information statement and bring tax returns and give me statements, get those on your own. It costs money to subpoena documents. It cost money to ask for documents through discovery in the other side. The less paperwork we can do to get the paperwork – if that makes any sense – the better it is for you.
Property owners have a duty to ensure that their premises are safe for their guests. This includes a duty to ensure that any slip and fall hazard is identified and remedied as quickly as possible. Charlotte slip and fall incidents regularly result in victims sustaining severe injuries, including broken and dislocated bones, severe sprains and strains, concussions, and more. Slip and fall injury victims are often able to recover various types of compensation from property owners and insurance carriers.
Non-Exempt Property Seizure – A judgment creditor has a right to have a ‘Writ of Execution’ issued, which will instruct a sheriff to seize and sell any non-exempt property. This may include rental homes, vacation homes, boats and other types of personal property. Even if you do not have any property that the sheriff is allowed to take, you may still be visited by the sheriff if a Writ of Execution is issued. The sheriff will usually send you notice before they visit your home. Receivership – This is a creditor’s harshest collection tool. In my opinion, this tool is not utilized as often for credit card lawsuits due to the costs involved compared to the possibility of recovering money. When a creditor gets a person called a ‘Receiver’ appointed by the court, that person has the power to collect property and funds of the judgment debtor (he steps in the judgment debtor’s financial shoes) and liquidates that property to pay the creditor.
Presuming that there is no justifiable or reality-based reason why that parent cannot see the children – it’s not an abuse situation, there’s not a neglect situation, there’s nothing like that – just a refusal by one parent to allow the other parent to see the children and that refusal is unreasonable, then we need to rectify that quickly. We may need to get the court involved quickly and file an application to have immediate parenting time with the children. Whatever that schedule looks like, we would have to talk about it – if it’s overnights, if it’s 50/50, and what that means – and we’re going to have to get into court really fast to have a judge address this quickly. The last thing you want to do is let that go on or prolong that because then you get stuck in the situation of, “You let this go on for too long. You didn’t really want to see the kids, and now you’re coming back and you want to see them.”
State v. Laura Gonzalez (A-47-20) (085132): Justice Albin concurred in this decision. His concern in this case was the officer’s use of lies and trickery in order to get the defendant to admit to fracturing the baby’s limb during interrogation. Detective Reyes had told the defendant, Laura Gonzalez that there are surveillance cameras in the house and they captured when she hurt the child. Gonzalez was told by Detective Reyes is better off telling the truth about the baby’s injuries. This was not the truth as there were no cameras in the house and telling her that the truth will help her out. According to Justice Albin, the detective’s statements “contravene the Miranda warnings.” Additionally, Gonzalez asked “But now what do I do about an attorney?” and the detective replied that “That is your decision. I can’t give you an opinion about anything.” In another case State v. Reed, 133 N.J. 237, 253 (1993), “A suspect need not be articulate, clear or explicit in requesting counsel; any indication of a desire for counsel, however ambiguous, will trigger entitlement to counsel.” Even if Detectives Reyes was not sure whether or not Gonzalez wanted counsel, she should have asked her to clarify. Since Detective Reyes did not ask to clarify and she did not stop questioning Gonzalez, the apology letter that she wrote to her employers and her confession that she injured the baby were excluded as evidence at trial.
