NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only
Cosmo Lex
Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Exhibit is prior Certification

  • 1.  Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 01:51 PM

    Listmates:

    Adversary was recently hired by a previous pro se litigant and obtained permission from the court to file a Supplemental Certification.  Conveniently, instead of drafting a Certification that was inclusive of all issues, adversary filed a short 4 page Certification which begins with the following: " I rely on my previously submitted Application for Modification of Court Order and Reply Certification" which was adjudicated months ago.  The Motion and Reply Cert (Exhibit A) total over 60 pages with additional exhibits.  In essence, my adversary is attempting to argue two motions in her Supplemental Certification.  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated and thank you in advance for same. 

    Best,

    Eric

    ------------------------------
    Eric Hannum Esq.
    Jackson NJ
    (732)370-9596
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 01:59 PM

    Move to strike, by golly.

    There is a court rule that states certifications must contain facts to the certifier's personal knowledge.  All the stuff attached to the new motion probably contain items of information that are not personally known to the certifier.

    The attachments also impermissibly expand the page limits beyond anything reasonable.

    If it were my case, I would be objecting. What the adversary has done may be cheap, easy, and convenient, but it also is unfair to your client and you.

    Hanan


    hanan.gif

    Hanan M. Isaacs, Esq.

     

    t 609.683.7400   f 609.921.8982

    e [email protected]   w www.hananisaacs.com

    4499 Route 27, Kingston NJ




    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 02:09 PM
    Generally, the other Certification would have to be included . As Judge Reisner used to say when he sat in the Family Part, The Court has no institutional memory. So, if it is not included, then the arguments as to the process/substance may not even come into play.


    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE


    The information contained in this communication is similar to ordinary telephone conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry which would be applied in the event a formal opinion was rendered by this firm. The information may also be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this communication is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege of the confidentiality of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. This firm accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage from the use or receipt of this message and/or any attachments hereto, including any damage caused by virus.

    [email protected]


    Allan Weinberg, Esq.
    100 Craig Road, Suite 102
    Manalapan, New Jersey 07726
    Telephone: (732) 80 NJ LAW
        (732) 806-5529      Voice/Text 24/7 Access

    Telefax: 732.845.0144

    Twitter:       AllanWEsq
    LinkedIn: AllanWeinberg
    Google+:  Allan Weinberg
    Google+ Allan Weinberg, Attorney At law





     



    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 02:18 PM
    Allan,
     
    While I agree with you in theory, the adversary now has included facts, circumstances and documents that would take 50 pages to reply to as a reply to a Supplemental Certification.
     
    Eric



    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 02:09 PM
    Hanan,
     
    My thoughts exactly.  I plan on filing a brief outlining same and getting a ruling on the issue prior to the Motion Hearing.  Never saw this before and wanted to get some feedback from others. 
     
    Thanks again
     
    Eric



    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 02:25 PM

    Eric, procedurally how will you get a decision prior to the motion hearing? Leave of court to file an interlocutory motion with pending stay of hearing date?

    Thanks, 

    Tom King

    ------------------------------
    Thomas King Esq.
    Kinnelon NJ
    (973)750-8348
    [email protected]

    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 02:56 PM
    I was going to make the motion on my feet but an interlocutory application is probably better.  Can not wait to hear client's response when I tell him about this.   



    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 03:07 PM

    Howe much is this going to cost your client. If this was a reply certification, and you feel this violates the rule, simply write a letter and then argue at time of oral argument.

     

    Robert E. Goldstein, Esq.
    Drescher & Cheslow, P.A.

    610 Bridge Plaza Drive

    Manalapan, NJ 07726

    (732) 972-1600
    Fax (732) 972-0038
    E-mail: [email protected]

     

    Visit my personal website:  www.mydivorcelawyernj.com

    Member, Middlesex County Bar Association,  Monmouth Bar Association, New Jersey Association for Justice and New Jersey State Bar Association

                                      

     

    IRS Circular 230 Notice: To ensure compliance with certain regulations promulgated by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by any taxpayer for the purpose of (1) avoiding tax-related penalties under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein, unless expressly stated otherwise.

    This E-Mail message and any documents accompanying this E-Mail transmission contain information from the law firm of Drescher & Cheslow, P.A. which is "Privileged and confidential attorney-client communication and/or work product of counsel." If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution and/or the taking of or refraining from taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this E-Mail information is strictly prohibited and may result in legal action being instituted against you. Please reply to the sender advising of the error in transmission and delete the message and any accompanying documents from your system immediately. Thank you

     




    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 03:09 PM

    If your adversary is on this Listserv, then you may not have to do anything.

    ------------------------------
    Mitch Steinhart, Esq.
    Bergen County Board of Social Services
    Rochelle Park, NJ

    Original Message


  • 10.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 03:18 PM
    I agree with Robert Goldstein - do a letter objecting and argue it at the motion hearing.  

    There are a multitude of issues regarding your adversary's tactic that have been previously addressed in this thread (due process, inappropriate attempt at reconsideration, hearsay/personal knowledge issues - although it sounds like it's the client's previous certification so personal knowledge might not be an issue).

    R. 5:5-4 discusses Certifications in Family Court.  Per (g) - Certified statements (not previously filed with the Court) that are included as exhibits are added to the page limitations of the original Certification.  As the certification was previously submitted, it appears this rule does not specifically apply, although I would argue the intent of the rule is to prevent the very issue present here - circumventing the page limitation with extraneous, irrelevant, and previously submitted information.  Maybe as to procedural history/background it's not a big deal, but if there are substantive arguments and factual contentions being presented that were not submitted with the initial certification and/or reply certification, I think that's inappropriate and contrary to the intent of the rules.




    Gregory Thomlison, Esq.
    Kerr & Thomlison, L.L.C.
    650 Washington St.
    Suite 1C
    Toms River, NJ 08753
    Ph. (732) 736-8100

    THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE IS ATTORNEY-PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, Please immediately notify us by telephone or reply to this email.  Thank you.

    On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Mitchell Steinhart via New Jersey State Bar Association




    Original Message


  • 11.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 02:08 PM

    Technically, exhibits are not counted for the page limits but some judges get wiggy about attaching prior certifications with exhibits. make the objection that her submissions do not comply with the motion rules.  You just said a motion was already heard and decided months ago.  she does not re-draft the certification but just attaches it. the court should disregard.

     

    Alice M. Plastoris, Esq.

    Law Office of Alice M. Plastoris, Esq.

    82 Speedwell Avenue, 2nd Floor

    Morristown, NJ 07960

    Telephone No. (973) 538-7070

    Fax No. (973) 538-7088

    Email: [email protected]

     

    ***EMAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE*** The information contained in this electronic message may contain attorney-client privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the owner of the email address listed as the recipient of this message.  If you are not the intended recipient of this email message, you are hereby notified that any disclosure dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this transmission in error, plesae notify the sender by return email, and by telephone at (973) 538-7070.

     




    Original Message


  • 12.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 02:14 PM
    Have you contracted adversary?  Might work; cite rule.
     
     
     
    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 12/07/16, Eric Hannum via New Jersey State Bar Association<>org> wrote:
     
    Listmates: Adversary was recently hired by a previous pro se litigant and obtained permission from the court to file a Supplemental... -posted to the "Family Law Section" community

    Family Law

     Post New Message
    Exhibit is prior Certification
    Reply to GroupReply to Sender
    Dec 7, 2016 1:51 PM
    Eric B. Hannum, Esq

    Listmates:

    Adversary was recently hired by a previous pro se litigant and obtained permission from the court to file a Supplemental Certification.  Conveniently, instead of drafting a Certification that was inclusive of all issues, adversary filed a short 4 page Certification which begins with the following: " I rely on my previously submitted Application for Modification of Court Order and Reply Certification" which was adjudicated months ago.  The Motion and Reply Cert (Exhibit A) total over 60 pages with additional exhibits.  In essence, my adversary is attempting to argue two motions in her Supplemental Certification.  Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated and thank you in advance for same. 

    Best,

    Eric

    ------------------------------
    Eric Hannum Esq.
    Jackson NJ
    (732)370-9596
    ------------------------------
      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.



    Original Message


  • 13.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 03:02 PM

    Agree with Hanan's comments.  Only personal knowledge in certifications. Though I have seen plenty of inadmissible hearsay and even attorney testimony in client certifications . . .

    I have questions.  If the cert prepared by the pro se was submitted as part of a motion previously adjudicated, is any or all of it even relevant to the relief being requested in the instant motion?  Or is the adversary trying to get a second chance at the previous motion?  That is wholly improper unless adversary is moving for reconsideration within allowed time limits.  Just some more possible grounds to object/move to strike.

    If time permits, I would probably reach out by phone to adversary to see if she might want to withdraw the cert incorporating the prior cert and submit a cert which complies with all the rules.  Adversary may simply be inexperienced and welcome the chance to make things right before having to face a motion to strike.  

    Best of luck to you. Anne

    Anne Cralle, Esq.

    ------------------------------
    Anne Cralle, Esq.
    LAW OFFICE OF ANNE CRALLE
    Limited Liability Company
    276 Main St.
    Metuchen, NJ 08840
    (732) 829-5805
    [email protected]

    Original Message


  • 14.  RE: Exhibit is prior Certification

    Posted 12-07-2016 03:31 PM

    Robert

    I would feel uncomfortable proceeding by a letter only.  I would caption my motion as a motion to strike, returnable the same day as the underlying motion, and include a letter nemo in support.

    This should not be a long, time consuming, or expensive process.

    Hanan


    hanan.gif

    Hanan M. Isaacs, Esq.

     

    t 609.683.7400   f 609.921.8982

    e [email protected]   w www.hananisaacs.com

    4499 Route 27, Kingston NJ




    Original Message