High quality law assistance in New Jersey from Sandy Ferner

Professional legal assistance NJ, USA 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 additional info on Sandy Ferner.

Law tip today with Sandy Ferner : Recently a person reached out to us and wanted to know, “How do I file for child support if my spouse or other parent of my child lives in another state?” If you are the parent that the child is currently living with, you can file for child support in the state where you are currently living. If the other party lives out of state, then you will have to serve the other party with whatever application you are filing. There are different ways of filing the applications, but in certain circumstances the courts will assist you in having those papers served on the other party. If you have an attorney, you can also use them to help you with that service process. There are companies that are process serving companies and also sheriff’s officers that can assist with having those documents served on the other party, even if they’re out of state.

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.

Grandparents don’t have independent rights to visit their grandchildren and certainly not independent custody rights to their grandchildren. The only time or the only situation where you might have a grandparent assume custody or be granted guardianship over a grandchild is if both parents in some way aren’t able to care for their children, where there’s drug or alcohol issues or there’s incarceration issues, and they’re really looking to the next of kin to care for those children. Grandparents sometimes come into that.

State v. Anthony Sims, Jr. (A-53-20) (085369): Justice Albin dissented in the Sims’ case because the admission of the defendant’s statement to detectives violated his right against self-incrimination. The final decision by the court held that there is no error in the trial court denying the motion for the defendant to suppress his statement to the police and the plaintiff’s hearsay statements at the pretrial hearing were admissible. The plaintiff’s testimony implicated Sims’ violated his own confrontation rights. Whether or not police officers, prior to interrogation are required to inform an arrestee of the charges that will be filed against them is related to the Miranda rights issue. Sims was not told about the charges he was facing and without knowing the charges the defendant faces, they will not be able to intelligently decide whether to waive their right to self-incrimination. It should not have been difficult for police officers to make him aware of these charges because they justify the defendant’s detention. You can see which direction Justice Albin was going in by his dissenting opinion, to enhance defendants’ Miranda rights.