Distinctive Representation in Sophisticated Family Law Matters
Published on:

State Farm Life & Assurance Co. v. Goecks, F. Supp. 3d       , 2016 WL 1715205 (W.D. Wis. 2016)

Facts: A Wisconsin divorce decree provided:

The respondent [Gary] shall be required to maintain the petitioner [Sharon] as the primary, irrevocable beneficiary on one third of the face value of all his life insurance policies in effect as of the date of the final hearing or in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) of the face value of said policies, whichever sum is greater. Continue reading →

Published on:

In 2017, communities exist both in the physical and virtual world. Whether you call a metropolis like Greensboro, or a small town such as Asheboro, home, there exist reasonable limits to the extent you will interact with certain individuals, the peer groups you will associate with, and how information will be transmitted. In the virtual world, those limitations are effectively eliminated and with that, an increased risk when it comes to revealing what would otherwise remain personal information. It is important for clients to understand the dangers that exist in regards to their cases when maintaining an active social media presence. Continue reading →

Published on:

One thing that parents from all walks of life can commiserate over is the struggle to find child care. If you are a new parent, expecting your first child, new to the area, or just considering a change in care, there is a lot to consider when choosing a child care provider. There are several crucial criteria to keep in mind when searching for a daycare or preschool: curriculum, ratings, and your gut. Continue reading →

Published on:

“Behind the Bar” is a multi-part blog series that will focus on specific aspects of the practice of law ranging from the Rules of Evidence, Rules of Civil Procedure, and other important legal practice technicalities in an effort to provide readers a better understanding of regularly overlooked and misunderstood concepts that lawyers are faced with on a day-to-day basis.  Continue reading →

Published on:

Whether you are a North Carolina law student, newly admitted to the practice of law, or a layperson involved in a civil lawsuit, you will hear quite a bit about service, service of process and certificates of service. In previous blogs, we have reviewed the basics of Rules 4 and 5 of The North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, but for those just becoming acquainted with the Rules, it ‘s hard to differentiate which rule applies, and when. For those who are involved in a lawsuit, it is always best to hire an attorney who can answer your questions fully and advise you of your rights. However, as a way to learn more about Rules 4 and 5 let’s look at some scenarios, and how these Rules regarding service are applied. Continue reading →

Published on:

While Rule 4 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure proscribes the method for the filing and service of the original complaint in an action, Rule 5 deals with the filing and service of orders, pleadings, and other documents that follow that initial complaint. Continue reading →

Published on:

“Behind the Bar” is a multi-part blog series that will focus on specific aspects of the practice of law ranging from the Rules of Evidence, Rules of Civil Procedure, and other important legal practice technicalities in an effort to provide readers a better understanding of regularly overlooked and misunderstood concepts that lawyers are faced with on a day-to-day basis.  Continue reading →

Published on:

“Behind the Bar” is a multi-part blog series that will focus on specific aspects of the practice of law ranging from the Rules of Evidence, Rules of Civil Procedure, and other important legal practice technicalities in an effort to provide readers a better understanding of regularly overlooked and misunderstood concepts that lawyers are faced with on a day-to-day basis. Continue reading →

Published on:

Family Chiropractic Sports Injury & Rehab Clinic, v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2016-10, 2016 WL 234515 (2016)

Facts: Husband and wife operated a chiropractic The practice had an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”). Husband and wife were the only participants. Continue reading →

Published on:

Dahl Aerospace Employees’ Ret. Plan of Aerospace Corp., 122 F. Supp. 3d 453 (E.D. Va. 2015)

Facts: A Virginia divorce decree, incorporating a settlement agreement, gave each spouse the option to elect survivor benefits under the retirement plan of the other. This provision was not immediately stated in a DRO or qualified by the plan. Continue reading →