In a case involving facts that could have been the plot of a soap opera episode or Lifetime Original Movie, a New Jersey court recently held that a husband could annul his marriage due to his wife's equitable, not actual, fraud.
In Easton v. Mercer (names were changed by the court to protect the innocent), plaintiff began dating defendant and, two years later, proposed to her. Defendant's parents objected because they "disapproved of [plaintiff] as a suitable husband for their daughter." True love, however, would not be denied. Without telling defendant's parents, plaintiff and defendant scheduled a small wedding to take place three weeks after plaintiff's proposal. Prior to the wedding, they applied for a marriage license, which was issued seven days later. They then got married in a small ceremony, administered by a reverend, and attended by approximately 15 guests. All of the guests were invited by plaintiff. Defendant did not invite any guests, including her parents, with whom she still lived and who were still unaware that the wedding was taking place. This, as they say, is when the plot thickens.
Continue reading “Failure To Launch! Bride’s Post-Wedding Cold Feet = Equitable Fraud = Annulment”
by: Peter J. Gallagher (@pjsgallagher)
Please check out an article I wrote for law360.com on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans. Here is the opening paragraph:
On Jan. 13, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans (No. 13-684) and resolved a circuit split on an important issue arising under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §1601-1677 (“TILA”). Under TILA, a borrower has the right to rescind certain loans for up to three years after the loan is consummated. To exercise this right, borrowers must “notify the creditor” of their intention to rescind the loan within three years. The question in Jesinoski was whether a borrower satisfies this requirement by sending written notice to a lender of its intent to rescind or whether the borrower must file a lawsuit within the three-year statutory period. In recent years, a circuit split had developed over this issue. In Jesinoski, the Supreme Court resolved this split, holding that written notice is sufficient.
Check out the rest of the article here.
by: Steven P. Gouin
A recent ruling from the New Jersey Appellate Division highlights how diligent a homeowners' association ("HOA") must be in enforcing restrictions in its governing documents. After a lengthy court battle, the court found that a South Jersey HOA had not engaged in selective enforcement of architectural restrictions or constitutional violations. However, notwithstanding this positive result, the Court’s decision in Nisch v. Ocean Beach & Yacht Club provides a cautionary tale for HOAs throughout the State, one they would be wise to heed if they want to avoid protracted and costly litigation.
Continue reading “Caution: Condo Club’s Careful Consideration Could Have Countered Costly Construction Case”