Family Law

Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

  • 1.  Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 12-02-2015 08:03 AM

    David

    This is very good work and a tremendous undertaking.  You should get some sleep.

    Hanan




  • 2.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 12-16-2015 11:34 AM
    You are a Hero!
     
     
     
    DAVID MOLK, Esq.
    71 Mount Vernon Street
    Ridgefield Park, New Jersey  07660
    (201) 440-3400; Fax (201) 440-4347
     
    This e-mail and any attachments contains information which may be confidential, privileged an/or proprietary.  If you are not the addressee(s) (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient(s), you may not use, copy, or disclose to anyone the information contained in or attached to this e-mail.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all attachments.
     
    On 12/15/15, David Perry Davis via New Jersey State Bar Association<>org> wrote:
     
    The eagle has flown. The motion for summary judgment and exhibits have been filed: 109 page brief (125 with table of citations, etc), 1,328...

    Family Law

     Post New Message
    Re: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action
    Reply to GroupReply to Sender
    Dec 15, 2015 6:03 PM
    David Perry Davis, Esq
    The eagle has flown. The motion for summary judgment and exhibits have been filed: dpdlaw.com/kavadas.htm#Top 109 page brief (125 with table of citations, etc), 1,328 pages of exhibits.

    Thank you to all for the help, suggestions, comments, critiquing, heckling, and overall support. This was far and away the hardest thing I've ever done in my life (including first year law school exams, studying for the bar, Pasqua, etc). Learned that I can function for 37 straight hours (three times in two and a half weeks). (Or "almost function as I cringe reading one of my 5:30 a.m. messages here). And it was still a day late (but hopefully not "a dollar short"). No way I could have done it without the help so many of you gave. And for those who meant to get around to chipping something in, don't worry... there will be opposition and a reply.

    The current system of automatically suspending licenses is hurting a lot of people - payors, payees, and the kids who need supprt who don't get it (and can't spend time with a parent who can't drive to see them) because a license was taken too quickly on a default and without any inquiry into whether it would be justified. Hopefully we've taken a big step toward changing that.

    Thanks again.


    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    www.dpdlaw.com/kavadas.htm#Top
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222



      Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward  



     
    You are subscribed to "Family Law" as [email protected]. To change your subscriptions, go to My Subscriptions. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe.





  • 3.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 12-17-2015 10:08 AM
    Thanks, David, but whether it's heroism on my part (and all those who helped) or tilting at windmills can only be answered after a final result is obtained.

    Next step is mediation. I hope it's a good sign that the State has agreed to attend (initially said they were going to ask to be excused from it) with Eric Max, who runs the Office of Dispute Settlement for the State (I hadn't even known there was such an office).

    http://dpdlaw.com/kavadas.htm#Top


    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>





  • 4.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 12-17-2015 11:55 AM
    Heroism is not measured by results.  It is what you do to help when you do not have to and when personal gain is not to be had.
     
     
     
    DAVID MOLK, Esq.
    71 Mount Vernon Street
    Ridgefield Park, New Jersey  07660
    (201) 440-3400; Fax (201) 440-4347
     
    This e-mail and any attachments contains information which may be confidential, privileged an/or proprietary.  If you are not the addressee(s) (or authorized to receive for the intended recipient(s), you may not use, copy, or disclose to anyone the information contained in or attached to this e-mail.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all attachments.
     
    On 12/17/15, David Perry Davis via New Jersey State Bar Association<>org> wrote:
     
    Thanks, David, but whether it's heroism on my part (and all those who helped) or tilting at windmills can only be answered after a final result is...

    Family Law

     Post New Message
    Re: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action
    Reply to GroupReply to Sender
    Dec 17, 2015 10:08 AM
    David Perry Davis, Esq
    Thanks, David, but whether it's heroism on my part (and all those who helped) or tilting at windmills can only be answered after a final result is obtained.

    Next step is mediation. I hope it's a good sign that the State has agreed to attend (initially said they were going to ask to be excused from it) with Eric Max, who runs the Office of Dispute Settlement for the State (I hadn't even known there was such an office).

    http://dpdlaw.com/kavadas.htm#Top


    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222



      Reply to Group Online   View Thread   Recommend   Forward  



     
    You are subscribed to "Family Law" as [email protected]. To change your subscriptions, go to My Subscriptions. To unsubscribe from this community discussion, go to Unsubscribe.





  • 5.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 12-17-2015 02:58 PM

    I am in court now  and my client is asking if NY child support is calculated by a percentage of income. Can I get a quick summary?? Thanks in advance 
    Sent from my iPhone





  • 6.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 12-17-2015 05:26 PM
      |   view attached
    Dear Abigale:

    I am attaching for your reference a document summarizing the New York State Child Support Standards Act. 

    Best regards,

    David

    Law & ADR Office of David J. Reilly
    40 East 94th Street, Suite 3J
    New York, NY 10128
    (212) 996-32322 (Telephone)
    (212) 410-6232 (Telecopy)


    STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY

    The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressees and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify David J. Reilly, Esq., by telephone at 212-996-3233 or by e-mail at the e-mail address indicated; and please destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any arbitrator's, mediator's, attorney/client, or work-product immunity, privilege, or other applicable protection.






    Attachment(s)

    pdf
    NYSCSSA.12.17.15.pdf   302 KB 1 version


  • 7.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 12-21-2015 04:18 PM
    There's a couple of news stories out that I've been made aware of headlining claims that either the Administrative Office of the Courts or the Division of Family Development "lied to" or "mislead" the Legiislature on as to the effectiveness of license suspensions. (Bergen Dispath: http://www.bergendispatch.com/articles/37693152/Data-Shows-Child-Support-Administrators-Lied-To-Lawmakers-About-Effectiveness-Of-Collections.aspx  and NJ Law Journal: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202745262353  )

    I've posted a response on the site ( http://www.dpdlaw.com/kavadas.htm ) that bears repeating. If there's a villian here, it's not the DFD nor any current member of the AOC - you'd have to go back to the AOC 11 years ago to see where the current, destuctive policies originated.


            New---> New write-up in the Bergen Dispatch: Please note that I didn't say, nor do I believe, that the Division of Family Development (DFD) "lied" to the Legislature. The DFD's funding is based on what percentage of support they collect - they have no motivation to maintain a counter-productive system.
            So "cui bono from the current counter-productive system?" The current system coerces the statistically small portion of obligors who can but won't pay . It thus crushes those in poverty (only 1% of those in default on a support obligation earned in excess of $40,000 the year preceding default) in favor of squeezing those who are able to pay.
             This was a policy decision: throw the poor (primarily non-white) obligors under the bus in order to squeeze out a few bucks for middle-class obligees. It's clear that one Director of the AOC several years ago (not the current staff of the AOC) is responsible for the current "no notice" warrants and the reduction of due process (by, for example, ordering that delinquincy notices be served by regular rather than certified mail with a nonsense check of "databases" that would reflect address changes by middle-class obligors, but not those in poverty).
            The MVC also benefits from the current system, but it has been in place long before Chief Adminstrator Martinez took over and there is nothing in his history or charectar that would suggest he is intentionally supporting a system that takes millions out of the mouths of children in poverty to enrich the MVC. Research is continuing and eventually there will be an update on this issue.




    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>





  • 8.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 01-15-2016 04:11 PM
    UPDATE: Defendants have requested a month's delay to submit their cross motion for summary judgment. Although there were delays on this side, I am one person, and, even with getting help from those of you (and others), I've had to try to work this into also making the overhead and paying the staff here. There are over 500 DAG's. Also, the State, while agreeing to attend mediation, has still not agreed on a date, and proposed that it occur "at the end of the month or early February." They're now seeking an adjournment in part to see how mediation goes. So, I'm agreeing to two weeks, contigent on the AG's office scheduling mediation in the next week. We'll see what Judge Jacobson does. The letters are on the website ( http://www.dpdlaw.com/kavadas.htm )


    Also, I understand that there recently was a belief expressed that the suit could result in the Bar having to defend these actions pro bono. Not so. To the extent the issue was presented, it is assumed in the brief that the same system put in place by the Supreme Court in Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127 (2006) would be used -- specifically, that license suspensions for nonpayment of support would occur only in the context of Ability to Comply Hearings, with this relief unavailable if counsel is not available.




    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>





  • 9.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 02-10-2016 05:57 PM
    UPDATE: The State changed its initial position and agreed to attend mediation. It's scheduled for tomorrow with Eric Max and the Office for Dispute Resolution at the HJC in Trenton. My thought is that I'd be willing to give on some of the weaker issues, but I'm holding steady on ending the automatic suspensions and appointment of counsel. Wish me luck. In fact, if anyone has a goat they've been saving for just the right occassion, it should be sacrifce night. :-)

    I heard Brian Schwartz said at the last FLEC meeting that I should volunteer that the bar will do the hearings if we agree that counsel needs to be appointed for these folks? I'll double check on that before I offer it.


    Updates, as always, are on the site: http://www.dpdlaw.com/kavadas.htm



    PS - Gerry, I'm at 762.3 hours over the last year ;-)



    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>





  • 10.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 02-11-2016 05:41 PM
    UPDATE: Mediation didn't resolve the case today. The DAG's want the AOC to be included in the mediation as, even if they're not a party (which I believe they can't be due to legisltative and/or judicial immunity issues as per the SCT in Pasqua), they'd be key in implementing any resolution if one is reached. Won't say more or give any indication as to whether I think it'll eventually be succesful. I have agreed to postpone the briefing and current March 17 return date on the motion/cross motion for summary judgment. We're getting a new date for the next round of mediation.


    And yes, in response to the multiple off-board messages I got, I was kidding when I said heard Brian Schwartz indicated that I should volunteer the bar to do the hearings if we agree that counsel needs to be appointed when a DL suspension is on the table.




    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>





  • 11.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 02-12-2016 10:31 AM

    David:

     

    You regularly use this listserv to espouse or support pseudo-legal opinions and theories – the 1/3 "Rule" and the more recently discussed 10% per year commingling "Rule" are just two examples.  You have also, in the past, used this listserv to criticize the Bar Association or the Family Law Section, often based upon misinformation.  I recall a time during my term as chair where I was forced to respond to your very public and equally misinformed diatribe against the bar.  There are many who are amused by your posts – I am not one of them. 

     

    In fact, in large part because of those postings, I have come to view the listserv as a disservice provided by the Bar Association rather than an asset.  A forum which was initially created to support a forward thinking exchange of ideas or a scholarly discussion of legal principles and pronouncements or ideas as how to make the practice of family law better has devolved into, all too often, a nonsensical, backward thinking, or simplistic exchange unworthy of review.  I apologize in advance to those who may be offended by this comment, but I believe it is fair and accurate.

     

    I did not, and do not, appreciate you mentioning me in one of your posts – only later to post a "just kidding" as an aside to another of your multiple posts. 

     

    So as to avoid any potential need by the NJSBA to "sanction" me for this post – which is likely contrary to the rules regarding use of this listserv – I will just remove myself from it.  Instead, I will search for a listserv which truly is seeking to be a forum for the exchange of real ideas, true scholarly discussions and with the goal of hosting opinions and ideas as to how to make our practice better.

     

    Signing off now. 

     

    Brian Schwartz, Esq.

    Brian Schwartz, Attorney at Law, LLC

    The Atrium at Maple Street

    47 Maple Street, Third Floor

    Summit, New Jersey  07901

    Phone:  (908) 219-4219

    Fax:  (908) 219-4561

    E-mail:  [email protected]

    www.schwartzfamilylaw.com

     

    http://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/images/blf-badge-2016.jpg

    Rated by Super Lawyers

     






  • 12.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 02-12-2016 11:20 AM
    Brian, it's not a problem. Just right-click on any message from me. Click on "filter", and select "sort to trash" (or whatever form of this your email program uses), then you won't see them.

    I'm sorry you don't view this as a forum for discussing ideas and even publicly disagreeing. Yes, I certainly have criticized some positions that were asserted as representing "the family bar's position" when there was no discussion, no debate, no forewarning that this would be done. It would be one thing to say "this is FLEC's postion" (etc). Like the recent outcry (and subsequent change to the rules) in the "nominating committee" process, it should be clear when a statement is made "on behalf of the bar" when it was a smoke-filled room of elites, not a position that was vetted (never mind voted on, I guess that would be asking too much).

    I really didn't mean to make it a flame-war, but you stood up at a FLEC meeting and said that I was arguing in Kavadas that the bar should handle Ability to Comply hearings on DL suspensions. This was false. You should not have done it. I don't know if it qualified as defamation and/or unethical conduct and don't care to pursue it, but it was false and should not have been said. Unlike an email list, where someone can ignore / sort messages to trash, you made a public statement to everyone in the room that you'd invented. Sorry if you didn't like my handling it as I did, trying to use some humor to defuse it, but please don't make false statements in public and it won't be an issue in the future.

    Obviously, the central issue we've disagreed on is guidelines and alimony reform and the ongoing efforts to change the law and bring NJ into line with other states that have enacted them. I'd never heard of you before you asserted positions on this. Guidelines haven't resulted in a significant change in the average alimony award, just a lower cost and faster resolution to divorces. In response to several people testifying that they were unhappy with a system where two couples with the exact same facts will receive dramatically different outcomes (an issue Justice Albin raised during oral argument in Gnall) and where legal bills skyrocket due to a lack of standards, you astoundingly testified to the Senate that the bar "represents both sides" in those cases. You obviously "don't get it" that there is legitimate public anger over this - what you said is the whole problem and yes I criticized this and continue to do so. I guess it's a fundamental philosophical difference in why we're lawyers. Some of us don't view it as simply a paycheck / and a way to make money. While I like to think the majority of us see this is a profession with a duty to public to keep costs down where possible (a view I know many share) and to make the world a more just place, that's not the impression given to the public when blantantly profit-motivated self-serving positions are asserted. If guidelines had a determintal effect on either payors or payess, these positions would make sense. Of course there are and will always be cases where litigation is needed, there's always going to be fact questions, there's always going to be grounds to depart from standards, and not every case can be resolved inexpensively and quickly, but simply creating issues (and legal bills) by fighting to keep things vague is offensive to the public and makes this profession look like it's motive is to line its pockets, not serve the public. I understand that there are different views on this and deeply respect those who are capable of arguing their view on it without, for example, standing up at a public event and smearing people who they don't realize are in the room. In any case, it's your choice to run from the discussion or not. I won't set your emails to delete, but respect your choice to do so if that's how you feel.

    And, yes, as per the Appellate Division in Grayson, it is malpractice not to be aware of "rules of thumb" that we use and which help us to settle cases by giving some guidance beyond "what we feel is fair depending on who we represent." These rules are used and I'm sorry if you weren't aware of them. Perhaps staying on lists might help educate you.

    Thanks.



    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
       www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    112 West Franklin Avenue
    Pennington, NJ 08534
    Voice: 609-737-2222
    Fax:    609-737-3222

    </x-sigsep>





  • 13.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 02-12-2016 11:28 AM
    Can you people do some work and stop loitering on this listserv? Seriously, do you ever work? You're all getting very annoying. This thing has turned into a plaything for a group of a half dozen or so people who like to pontificate ad nauseam about nothing. There is no reason the rest of us should have to suffer through that or leave the listserv to avoid it. Perhaps the cabal should create its own listserv. Or maybe the Bar should just shut this one done altogether.




  • 14.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 02-12-2016 11:32 AM
    "down", not "done"




  • 15.  RE: Support related license suspensions / Civil Rights Action

    Posted 02-12-2016 05:39 PM
    I absolutely agree. The percentage formulas are contrary to case and statutory law. I'm glad you spoke up.

    Sent from my iPhone
    Cynthia Ann Brassington, Esquire
    A Professional Corporation
    Linwood Commons, Suite F6
    2106 New Road
    Linwood, NJ 08221
    (609) 601-2323
    Fax. (609) 601-2322