New York Divorce Lawyers Recent Decisions

By David Siegel
Where father testified that his wife agreed to the reduction in child support on the condition that he help his son find a place to live and that he support him financially, where father testified further that he paid his son more than $4,000 over a two year period for housing, food and clothing, and where according to father, mother did not at any time during the almost five year period between the first reduced payment and the filing of her petition for arrearages object to the reduction in child support payments, father's payments to his son were made in reliance upon the statements and conduct of mother and, therefore, mother was equitable estoppel.

Child support payments become a vested right as they accrue and cannot be unilaterally terminated by the defendant, and neither can they be modified as to amount or time of payment. In the proper case, however, courts will give effect to an agreement between the parties to waive or reduce payments, or courts will apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel Where the mother, who was the custodial parent under the divorce decree, either consented to or acquiesced in a child living with the father and the father supported the child, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be applied to allow the father an equitable custody. The test has also been stated more broadly to be whether the conduct of the plaintiff mother, as shown by all the circumstance of the case, was sufficient to justify the conclusion that the enforcement of the decree as to unpaid support would be unjust and inequitable to the defendant father.

In cases allowing an equitable credit against support arrearages, the essential element of detrimental reliance has been present; that is, the court has found that the defendant father relied upon the plaintiff mother's conduct indicating her willingness to give up or modify her right to custody or support.

It is well-established that past-=due installments for child support are the vested rights of the designated recipients and the court lacks the authority to modify those amounts which have already accrued; therefore, any modification in child support payments will only act prospectively.

The required elements for equitable estoppel were not presented where the plaintiff had not by her conduct caused the defendant to suffer any irreparable harm, the failure on the plaintiff's part to make any demand on the defendant until five years after the defendant reduced payment did not create an equitable estoppel, and the record did not reveal that there was an agreement between the parties to reduce the amount due for child support nor did it indicate that the defendant relied upon any conduct by the plaintiff.

Payments

Even though ex-husband was paid bi-monthly, he could be ordered to make weekly payments, and the trial court was within its discretion to order an increase in child support to $90 per week.

Trial court did not err in refusing to abate child support payments for the time during which husband claimed that he did not know the whereabouts of the wife and child and this section precluded any modification of child support payments which had accrued. Trial court did not err in refusing to abate child support payments for the time during which husband claimed that he did not know the whereabouts of the wife and child and this section precluded any modification of child support payments which had accrued.

New York City divorce and family law firm handling divorce and family law cases throughout New York City and the surrounding areas. Results driven law firm with experience and skill to handle the most difficult cases.http://www.divorce-lawyers-newyork.com

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com

Filing a FELA Lawsuit - Understanding the Statute of Limitations

By: Joe Devine
The Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) of 1908 expanded the protections railroad workers enjoyed under the law and gave them the right to claim compensation from their employers for any injuries caused by the employer's negligence. Although FELA was undoubtedly beneficial to railroad workers, the protections it guaranteed them were not absolute. For example, a worker filing a FELA lawsuit must be able to prove negligence on the part of his or her employer - a simple task on paper, but far more difficult in a court of law.

Another restriction imposed on FELA lawsuits is the statute of limitations. A statute of limitations is a law which requires any and all legal action stemming from a specific event to be initiated before a certain amount of time has passed. In other words, if a railroad employee slips and falls on the job, the statute of limitations tells him how much time he has to file any legal action. After the time period mandated by the statute of limitations has expired, the employee no longer has the option of taking legal action.

The Time Limit for FELA

For FELA lawsuits, the statute of limitations allows legal actions to be filed for a period of three years following an incident. This poses both simple and complex questions for an injured worker. A simple situation may be something like this: On January 1st, 2008, an employee catches his hand in a faulty mechanism and fractures his finger. Because the statute of limitations for FELA is three years, the employee has until January 1st, 2011, to file his lawsuit.

The issue becomes more complicated when an injury results from factors which cannot be pinned down to once specific moment. For example, if an employee is exposed to harmful substances while working on the railroad, he or she may not feel the effects until years later. If the statute of limitations were calculated the same way as in the previous example, the employee would be out of luck if he or she did not discover symptoms within three years. Fortunately, the statute of limitations makes provisions for situations like these:

1)When the injured worker knows or should have known about his injury, and

2)When the injured worker knows or should have known that his injury was work-related,

Then the statute of limitations begins counting down its three year time limit. In other words, if an employee exposed to harmful substances on the job does not develop symptoms until 10 years later, the statute of limitations allows him 3 years from when he is diagnosed to file any legal action he may decide on.

Joe Devine For more information visit http://www.felalawsuitattorney.com .

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com

Does the Lemon Law Apply to You?

By: Barry Edzant
Do you believe you were sold a lemon? Well, you know what? More than likely you were, and luckily you have rights to protect you.

Intended to protect California residents, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act was created. This law, which you probably have heard is called the "Lemon Law," affords Californians the ability to take legal action against a manufacturer that has produced a defective vehicle.

The Lemon Law is pretty easy to understand. Simply stated, the manufacturer must either replace the vehicle or reimburse you an amount equal to the purchase price, if repairs are not done in a reasonable period. The definition of "reasonable" with regard to the number of repairs refers to the inability of the carmaker to fix the same defect after four tries.

Under the Lemon Law, if the defect is "life-threatening or likely to cause serious injury," only two repairs are necessary to be considered "reasonable." Also considered "reasonable" are repairs attempted within the manufacturer’s warranty period, if the vehicle is inoperable for a cumulative thirty days.

You may also qualify to be reimbursed for license fees, rental expenses, towing costs, and other expenses you incurred while trying to get your auto fixed. They may also pay your attorney’s fees and some losses.

Naturally, there are some details that need your attention. The malfunctioning parts must affect the use, value, or safety of the lemon, and this only applies to vehicles that are still under the original manufacturer's warranty. A consistently malfunctioning drink holder, for example, would not be eligible under the Lemon Law. The Lemon Law also does not apply to recreational vehicles, those intended for off road use, or motor homes. These vehicles fall under different laws. The manufacturer will deduct the mileage on the vehicle up until the problems started. Other restrictions may also be applicable.

The fact is that you can rid yourself of your lemon, get back most or possibly even all of the money you have put into the vehicle (including any loan or lease payments made post-purchase), and a good portion of your other losses incurred with the help of the Lemon Law. The Lemon Law is the epitome of the consumers' law.

Barry Edzant is a Los Angeles lemon law attorney. With more than 10 years of experience working with the Lemon law attorneys in California, Barry understands the nuances of the system and is prepared to fight for you. He is also a Santa Clarita personal injury attorney and a proficient California dog bite lawyers.

Article Source: http://www.ArticleBiz.com