The Connecticut Premarital Act, Connecticut General Statutes Section 46b-36g, requires that parties to a prenuptial agreement provide fair and reasonable disclosure of the amount, character, and value of the property, financial obligations and income to the other party.
Note – this duty to inform exists regardless as to whether the other party has requested the information or sought clarification.
A recent case illustrates this point. The schedule attached to the prenuptial agreement listed assets, rent and a column labeled “N.O.I.” N.O.I. was not defined in the agreement.
At trial, the plaintiff testified that N.O.I. meant “net operating income.” However, the premarital agreement failed to define net income and failed to set forth how net income was calculated. Bottom line – based on the information set forth in the agreement – the defendant could not have accurately known the plaintiff’s income. Therefore, the agreement was ultimately determined to be invalid.
As stated in prior posts, more is more. Therefore, notwithstanding that the law only requires “fair and reasonable” disclosure, the far better approach is to fully disclose one’s financial circumstances. If not, the agreement may not survive a challenge in court.
Two men who claim they were sexually abused by former Syracuse assistant basketball coach Bernie Fine recently filed a defamation lawsuit against head coach Jim Boeheim. Back in November, Boeheim dismissed the allegations of sexual abuse and called the accusers liars.
Boeheim’s attorneys will likely argue that the defamation case involves a “matter of public concern.” If the court agrees, the plaintiffs will be required to satisfy additional legal requirements not necessary in other defamation cases. These requirements will be difficult for the plaintiffs to prove.
Here are the additional requirements:
1. Prove that Boeheim’s statements about them were false. The plaintiffs will have to establish that they are telling the truth about being abused by Fine. In other words, demonstrate that they are not liars seeking money as stated by Boeheim. (They are indeed asking for money in their defamation lawsuit).
2. Prove that Boeheim acted with malice. The plaintiffs have voluntarily assumed a central role in a public controversy. Therefore, they must show that Boeheim knew that the statements he made about them were false or that he acted with reckless disregard as to whether his statements were false. This will be extremely difficult to establish.
I expect Boeheim’s attorney to file a Motion to Dismiss. I have not seen the actual Complaint so I am uncertain as to whether the case will survive a Motion to Dismiss. It might. However, as to a trial on the merits, expect Boeheim to prevail.
Because nearly 6,000 people died in distracted driving accidents in 2008 –
Because drivers using cell phones are four times more likely to get into injury-causing car accidents –
Because cell phone use while driving significantly reduces cognitive activity necessary for driving (by 37 percent) –
Because texting while driving is as dangerous, if not more dangerous, than drunk driving –
The NTSB is recommending that all states enact a complete ban on non-emergency cell phone use while driving.
Connecticut: A Step Ahead in Distracted Driving Law
Connecticut is one of only nine states that have already enacted such a ban. In Connecticut, no one of any age may use handheld cell phones while driving on any highway. Teenage drivers may not use a hands-free cell phone while driving. In fact, Connecticut law says that no person may engage in any activity unrelated to driving if it interferes with safe driving.
The NTSB recommendations go one step further, calling for all states to ban use of any portable electronic device while driving, including hands-free cell phone use – by everyone. “No call, no text, no update, is worth a human life,” said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman.
Since the NTSB press conference announcing the recommendations, many news sources have published articles discussing the difficulty that states would have enforcing such a ban, since it would be difficult to determine if a person was speaking on a hands-free device; however, there are options for patrolling, including using computers that track cell phone signals.
More importantly, the NTSB recommendation for a total cell phone ban while driving is one of many recent announcements that continue the discussion about the constantly-growing dangers of distracted driving. Deaths caused by distracted driving are tragic. They are also preventable.
Last week was National Teen Driver Safety Week, a week when organizations across the country and in Connecticut got the message out to parents and their teens: drive safely. Motor vehicle accidents are still the leading cause of death for teens in the U.S. In fact, teenagers are involved in fatal accidents three times as often as older drivers.
Inexperience, immaturity, drinking and driving, distracted driving (including texting while driving) and nighttime driving are some of the main factors that contribute to Connecticut auto crashes involving teen drivers.
Connecticut understands the importance of teaching teens to drive safely. Since 2007, it has had the strictest graduated licensing rules in the U.S. And these rules save lives. Between 2007 and 2009, crashes involving 16- and 17-year-old drivers decreased by 28 percent.
The rules include:
- During the first six months, newly licensed teen drivers may not drive with anyone other than a licensed parent or guardian.
- During the first year, newly licensed teen drivers may not drive with other teens in their car.
- Teens must be off Connecticut roads by 11:00 p.m.
- Teens must participate in double the amount of behind-the-wheel training than previously required.
- Parents must take a two-hour teen driving seminar before their children can receive licenses.
- Teenagers who break these rules will have their licenses revoked for 48 hours.
Many parents disagree with the rules because they are restrictive. Connecticut DMV spokesman William Seymour answers their plea to lessen the restrictions by saying, “How many members of your family are you willing to risk losing?” Teenagers are not experienced and their brains are not fully developed, making them a risk for everyone on the road.
The results show. Not only is the number of Connecticut teen car accidents down, but convictions for distracted driving, DUI and failure to wear a seat belt are also down, as well as the number of teenagers who have licenses.
Source: Newstimes.com, “Teen driver laws frustrate some; officials say they save lives,” Tom Cleary and Brian Lockhart, Dec. 6, 2011.
New York parents who just learned that Administration of Children Services (ACS) planned to pursue adoption of their eight children made a bold move. During a supervised visit, they loaded the children in a van and made a run for it. After a nationwide search, the parents and the children were found a week later in Pennsylvania.
Given that the children were in foster care for nearly 3 years it is not surprising that ACS was seeking to terminate parental rights and have the children adopted. In Connecticut, DCF ordinarily files a petition to Terminate Parental Rights (TPR) if a child has been in foster care for 15 consecutive months or at least 15 months during the last 22 months before the filing of the TPR.
Will the parent’s actions hurt or help the adoption case? One could argue that abducting their children shows complete disregard for the Court’s orders and for the safety and well-being of their children. On the other hand, perhaps the desperate actions of the parents and favorable public sentiment sway the court to allow more time for the parents to work toward reunification with their children.
I do not know why the children are in foster care. The parents claim the children were removed from their case because one child went to school with a blood shot eye. However, I suspect there are additional claims of abuse or neglect to warrant continued removal of all children for almost three years. In fact, the youngest child, who is only 11 months old, would have been placed in foster care after the original investigation.
In Connecticut, DCF can apply for an Order of Temporary Custody and remove children if “the children are in immediate danger from their physical surroundings or suffering from serious physical injury or illness.”
Here is the article from the NY Times:
Parents Who Abducted Their 8 Children Say They Feared Adoption Plans – NYTimes.com
A Connecticut divorce court has the authority to divide the personal property (i.e. cars, home furnishings, clothing etc.) of the spouses. Notwithstanding, judges prefer not to have to decide issues of personal property since it becomes a tedious and time consuming process.
Unless the personal property in dispute has significant economic (antiques, jewelry, stamp collection) or sentimental value (family heirlooms) it is often not cost effective to involve attorneys in issues of personal property. The better approach is for attorneys to encourage their clients to be reasonable and allow the spouses to divide personal property to their mutual satisfaction.
When reason fails, here are two cost effective options:
1. Mediation. The mediation should be binding – the decision of the mediator is final. The mediator is often an attorney experience in family law matters. Some Family Relations offices in Connecticut will mediate as well (even more cost effective).
2. Swap list. Each spouse makes a list of the property he/she wants. The agreed upon property is divided. A master list is made of the property that remains in dispute. The spouses take turns choosing property off the master list until the property is divided.
Obviously, there are instances when judges need to get involved. Nevertheless, litigating issues of personal property should be a last resort.