Tuesday, May 30, 2017

If separated, have a new Will and Power of Attorney drafted see 2017 update Wills and Estate Planning- Free Seminar Wednesday June 14

 If separated, have a new Will and Power of Attorney drafted 
see 2017 update Wills and Estate Planning- Free Seminar
Wednesday June 14
12:15-1:00 PM  
Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen,
2053 Woodbridge Ave, Edison, NJ 08817

      COST: Free if you pre-register by email. Complimentary materials provided at 12:00 sharp. We previously held this seminar for the Metuchen and Edison Adult schools. This program is limited to 15 people. Please bring a canned food donation, which will be given to a community food bank. Please email us if you plan on attending or if you would like us to email the materials.

SPEAKER: Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.                 
(Author- ABA Wills and Estate Administration)
1. NJ Estate Tax eliminated on Estates under $2,000,000 as of January 1, 2017
2. NJ Inheritance Tax stays if assets are going to persons other than spouse or children.   
3. Federal Estate Tax exemption increased to $5.49 million in 2017 but gifts limited to $14,000 per person
4. Set up a testamentary trust in your Will for Protection for spouses and leaving assets to children:
5. We recommend Self- Proving Wills since witnesses often move or pass away
6. The New Probate law NJ Senate Law No. 708  
7. NJ Supreme Court holds if an executor or trustee violates fiduciary duty they can be liable for attorneys fees
8. Power of Attorney- Do not use a form purchased online. 
9. Federal Health Privacy Law (HIPAA)- Have a new Living Will prepared
10. Competency required to sign a Will or Power of Attorney
      COMPLIMENTARY MATERIAL: Brochures on Wills, Probate and Administration of an Estate, Power of Attorney, Living Wills, Real Estate Sales for Seniors, and Trusts.   


Co-Sponsor: Middlesex County Estate Planning Council
To attend email VercammenLaw@Njlaws.com
Other Information call 732-572-0500
Can’t attend?  We can email you materials
   2017 update Wills and Estate Planning Seminar materials
                By Kenneth Vercammen

1. NJ Estate Tax eliminated on Estates under $2,000,000 as of January 1, 2017
2. NJ Inheritance Tax stays if assets are going to persons other than spouse or children.   
3. Federal Estate Tax exemption increased to $5.49 million in 2017 but gifts limited to $14,000 per person
4. Set up a testamentary trust in your Will for Protection for spouses and leaving assets to children:
5. We recommend Self- Proving Wills since witnesses often move or pass away
6. The New Probate law NJ Senate Law No. 708 made a
7. NJ Supreme Court holds if an executor or trustee violates fiduciary duty they can be liable for attorneys fees
8. Power of Attorney- Do not use a form purchased online. 
9. Federal Health Privacy Law (HIPAA)- Have a new Living Will prepared
10. Competency required to sign a Will or Power of Attorney
    Materials also online at http://njprobate.blogspot.com/2017/01/2017-update-wills-and-estate-planning.html
        1. NJ Estate Tax eliminated on Estates under $2,000,000 as of January 1, 2017
      The new law phases out the estate tax over two years, by first replacing the current $675,000 threshold with a “true” exclusion amount established at $2.0 million for decedents dying on or after January 1, 2017, and then eliminating the estate tax for decedents dying on and after January 1, 2018. 
     P.L. 2016, c. 57 provides that the New Jersey Estate Tax exemption will increase from $675,000 to $2 million for the estates of resident decedents dying on or after January 1, 2017, but before January 1, 2018.  For these estates, the New Jersey Estate Tax no longer conforms to the provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in effect on December 31, 2001 and instead follows the current federal Internal Revenue Code for determining the value of the estate, which will be subject to New Jersey Estate Tax.
Married couples filing jointly will, over the course of 4 years, exclude the first $100,000 in retirement from their income from their taxes, up from the current amount of $20,000.
There will be a $3,000 deduction for veterans of the armed forces.


      2. NJ Inheritance Tax must be paid if assets are going to persons other than spouse or children.
     In addition to the Estate Tax, New Jersey imposes an Inheritance Tax on the estates of certain resident and nonresident decedents. P.L. 2016, c. 57 made no changes to the New Jersey Inheritance Tax.
      Even if no inheritance tax due, a Tax Waiver on a house must still be obtained and filed if the house was not co-owned by the spouse.

INHERITANCE TAX BENEFICIARY CLASSES
Class A
No Tax
  • §Parent
  • §Grandparent
  • §Spouse
  • §Child of a decedent (includes legally adopted child)
  • §Grandchild, great-grandchild, etc. of a decedent
  • §Stepchild of a decedent
(Does not include a step-grandchild or great-step grandchild)
  • §Mutually acknowledged child
  • §Civil union partner (after 2/19/2007)
  • §Domestic partner (after 7/10/2004)
Class C
§Brother or sister of a decedent
§Spouse or surviving spouse of a child of a decedent
§Civil union partner or surviving civil union partner (after 2/19/2007) of a child of a decedent
Class D
§Anyone not included in Classes A, C, or E
Class E
No Tax
Including, but not limited to:
§Qualified charities
§Religious institutions
§Educational and medical institutions
§Non-profit benevolent or scientific institutions
§The State of New Jersey or any of its political subdivisions
See exempt organizations Exempt Organizations:
"Class E transferee" means any of the following:
• The State of New Jersey or any political subdivision thereof;
Any educational institution, church, hospital, orphan asylum, public library or Bible and tract society or to, for the use of or in trust for any institution or organization organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, benevolent, scientific, literary or education purposes, including any institution instructing the blind in the use of dogs as guides, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or other individual or corporation; provided, that the exemption does not extend to transfers of property to such education institutions and organizations of other states, the District of Columbia, territories and foreign countries which do not grant an equal and like exemption of transfers of property for the benefit of such institutions and organizations of this State.

2017 INHERITANCE TAX RATES

Class A- No tax is due

First $25,000.......................No tax is due
Next $1,075,000................ 11%
Next $300,000..................... 13%
Next $300,000..................... 14%
Over $1,700,000................... 16%

Class D [other people]
First $700,000......................... 15%*
Over $700,000......................... 16%

Class E- charities
No tax is due

     3. Federal Estate Tax exemption increased to $5.49 million in 2017 but gifts limited to $14,000 per person

     For 2017, the estate and gift tax exemption is $5.49 million per individual, up from $5.45 million in 2016.
    That means an individual can leave $5.49 million to heirs and pay no federal estate or gift tax. A married couple will be able to shield just shy of $11 million ($10.98 million) from federal estate and gift taxes.
The annual gift exclusion remains at $14,000 for 2017.

      Gifts permitted without Federal Estate & Gift tax remained at $14,000 per person. Gift Exclusions
The annual exclusion for gifts is $11,000 (2004-2005), $12,000 (2006-2008), $13,000 (2009-2012) and $14,000 (2013-2017).
However, the amount permitted for Medicaid transfers is zero. 

   4. Set up a testamentary trust in your Will for Protection for spouses and leaving assets to children:
       The Credit Shelter Trust (sometimes referred to as a “Bypass Trust” or an “A/B Trust”) was a popular estate planning technique used by married couples with combined assets to avoid the NJ Estate Tax. A Testamentary Trust (sometimes referred to as a Will trust or trust under will) is a trust, which arises upon the death of the testator [person who signed the Will]. A Credit Shelter Trust is a type of Testamentary Trust.
    The purpose of the Credit Shelter Trust was to avoid the wasting of federal and state exemptions on the death of the first spouse. Instead of leaving all assets to the surviving spouse and thereby exposing the surviving spouse’s estate to more tax, Nursing Home & Medicaid issues, plus elective share by a future spouse, both spouse’s Wills are drafted to establish a Credit Shelter Trust to come into existence and be funded on the first spouse’s death.
       Since NJ is eliminating the NJ Tax, a Testamentary Trust within the Will is still a useful device to help ensure children and grandchildren with receive money down the road. Otherwise, the surviving spouse can spend all the money in Atlantic City. The surviving spouse could also get remarried and do a new Will leaving all assets to the new spouse. Many families want to protect at least some of the money from wasteful spending or a new spouse.
      In a typical Testamentary Trust, the surviving spouse is entitled to receive all of the income from the Trust for his or her lifetime, and has the right to demand principal distributions for his or her health, education, support and maintenance in his or her accustomed manner of living. Distributions in excess of that standard require the cooperation of a Co-Trustee – often an adult child of the surviving spouse or a trust department of a bank.
      If the Testamentary Trust technique is implemented as part of a Client’s Estate Plan, you can hire the attorneys for a separate fee to assist the Client in re-titling his or her assets so that assets are available to fund the Credit Shelter Trust. Re-titling is necessary because most Clients tend to hold assets jointly with right of survivorship and assets must be titled individually in a person’s name in order to be eligible to fund a Testamentary Trust. We work with a tax attorney to help our clients. Protect your money if you pass away and your spouse gets re-married or has to go into a nursing home.
          Some persons even hire an attorney to set up a personal residence trust or irrevocable trust and have the assets taken out of your name and put into a trust or given to children and grandchildren in the trust. Minimum fees for trust are $3,000. This is not something a non-attorney can do on their own. It is also illegal for a non-attorney to provide legal advice or prepare most legal documents. 
      Beware of the “Elective share” rights of a new spouse. Have a Prenuptial Agreement if entering into a 2nd marriage
    Currently, the new spouse who is not given money in a Will can challenge the terms of the Will. This is called "electing against the Will by a spouse". A spouse could receive up to 1/3 of the estate, even if only married for 2 weeks. The spouse must file a Caveat or lawsuit in Superior Court.  We suggest a formal prenuptial agreement in 2nd marriage situations. If there is no Will, the new spouse receives 50% of the estate even if only married three days.

     5. We recommend proper Self- Proving Wills since witnesses often move or pass away
      An old New Jersey Probate law required one of the two witnesses to a Will to travel and appear in the Surrogate’s office and sign an affidavit to certify they were a witness. This often created problems when the witness was deceased, moved away, or simply could not be located.  Some witnesses would require a $500 fee to simply sign a surrogate paper. My Grandmother’s Will was not self- proving, and the witness to Will extorted a $500 fee.
      The New Jersey Legislature later passed a law to create a type of Will called a “Self-Proving Will.”  In such a Will, the person for whom the Will is made must sign.  Then two witnesses sign.  Then the attorney or notary must sign; with certain statutory language to indicate the Will is self-proving.  Beware of online documents not prepared by an attorney. Never use a cheap form on line. No one tries to do their own electrical work on their home anymore or change their own oil. Have a professional do it right.
      When done properly, the executor does not have to locate any witnesses. This usually saves time and money.  If your Will is not “self-proving” or if you are unsure, schedule an appointment with an estate planning attorney. Some law offices ignore the revised law, and fail to prepare self proving Wills. Do not use a law office that follows old methods and does not do a self-proving Will.

     6. The New Probate law NJ Senate Law No. 708 made a number of substantial changes to the NJ probate laws.
    
        Non-formal writings could be Wills under the New Probate Law provisions governing the administration of estates and trusts in New Jersey.  So make sure you have a Formal Will drafted by an estate attorney.
      You must have your original Will. A photocopy cannot be admitted to probate. Don’t leave the original in a Wells Fargo safe deposit box that cannot easily be accessed by Executor 2.
  The law expanded situations where writings that are intended as Wills would be allowed, but requires that the burden of proof on the proponent would be by clear and convincing evidence. Possibly a Christmas card with handwritten notes could be presented as a Will or Codicil. To present a non-formal Will or writing requires an expensive Complaint and Order to Show Cause to be filed in the Superior Court, and a hearing in front of a Superior Court Judge. Be careful; have a Will done properly by an experienced attorney.

     7. NJ Supreme Court holds if an executor or trustee violates fiduciary duty they can be liable for attorneys fees
In the Matter of the Estate of Adrian J. Folcher (A-3-14) (074590) the NJ Supreme Court addressed improper acts by family members in the handling of money and assets. In case of In re Niles Trust, 176 N.J. 282 (2003) the Court declared that “when an executor or trustee commits the pernicious tort of undue influence, an exception to the American Rule is created that permits the estate to be made whole by an assessment of all reasonable counsel fees against the fiduciary that were incurred by the estate.” 176 N.J. at 298-99. The Court explained that “[a] fiduciary relationship exists between a trustee and the trust[,] similar to the attorney-client relationship,” and that “[both the attorney and a trustee act as officers of the court when acting on behalf of clients and beneficiaries.” Id. at 297. The Court concluded that non-attorney status should not prevent an award of attorneys’ fees in suits against trustees or executors for undue influence. Id. at 299.
Thus, Niles created an exception to the American Rule in trustee or executor undue influence cases “based on the fiduciary’s intentional misconduct regardless of his or her professional status.” Id. at 300.
Underscoring the foundational importance of the finding of undue influence that supported fee-shifting to a fiduciary and his facilitating cohort in Niles, the Supreme Court declined to extend that fee-shifting exception in the circumstances presented in Vayda. There, a non-attorney executor of an estate was found to have acted negligently and with bad faith in his administration of the estate, but he was not found to have committed undue influence. Vayda, supra, 184 N.J. at 124. Reaffirming New Jersey’s “strong public policy against” fee shifting, ibid. (quoting Niles, supra, 176 N.J. at 293), the Court unanimously resisted the plea to extend Niles. The Court pointed out instead that Rule 4:42-9(a)(3) provides a specific remedy in probate actions; attorneys’ fees could be paid from the estate. Ibid.
Five years later, our decision in Stockdale, supra, reaffirmed, albeit in dicta, the narrowness of our fee-shifting exception created in Niles. 196 N.J. at 307 (emphasizing that Niles was “directed solely to circumstances in which ‘an executor or trustee commits the pernicious tort of undue influence’” (quoting Niles, supra, 176 N.J. at 298)). The circumstances of Stockdale provide guidance in the present matter.
Stockdale was a wealthy, elderly, reclusive woman in declining health, who had planned to leave much of her estate to a local charity (the first aid squad), when her neighbor Sollitto insinuated himself into her life. Id. at 284-86. Through a series of orchestrated acts, Sollitto with help from an attorney friend, Casale, had Stockdale deed her home to Sollitto; amend her will; name Casale the executor of the estate; make Sollitto the residual beneficiary; and forgive the purchase-money mortgage she took when Sollitto purchased her home that covered almost the entirety of the purchase price. Id. at 290-94.
The trial court found that the Will was unenforceable as the product of undue influence. Id. at 297. The transfer of Stockdale’s home, including the deed and the contract of sale, was also found to be unenforceable. Ibid. The trial court reinstated the original will -- the will naming the local charity as the residual beneficiary. Ibid. Relying on Niles, the trial court granted the charity attorneys’ fees as a form of punitive damages, reasoning that undue influence is a form of intentional tort that can sustain a fee award. Ibid. According to the trial court, the fee award was a measure of punitive damages that was necessary to make the estate whole. Ibid.
The Appellate Division reversed the fee award and “remanded for consideration of an award of punitive damages.” Id. at 298. The fee award was not supported “under Niles because Stockdale’s estate was not financially depleted by Casale’s and Sollitto’s conduct.” Ibid.
Sollitto, and not the first aid squad, filed a petition for certification, arguing that Niles did not authorize a punitive award. Id. at 299. Thus the issue before this Court was not the reversal of the fee award but rather whether punitive damages could be a remedy for the undue influence tort in probate proceedings.
This Court found that punitive damages were available in the probate part in the rare case. Id. at 304. The Supreme Court noted that, in the usual undue influence case, “undue influence is not a separately pleaded tort, but is the analytical framework within which the decision about whether to admit a will to probate is made.” Ibid. The main issue normally is which will to admit to probate. Ibid. If none of the competing parties has gained control of the estate, the estate has suffered no loss, and “the only remedy sought is the admission of a particular will to probate.” Ibid.
      However, the Supreme Court explained that a tort-based claim for compensatory damages can be asserted when the estate has suffered loss, if, for example, one of the parties has depleted the estate’s assets. Ibid. Even then, a compensatory award will be rare because equitable relief will usually suffice. Id. at 304-05. An executor is generally entitled to a commission based on the value of the estate; but if an executor engages in misconduct, his commission may be surcharged, and his monies offset by the loss he caused the estate. Id. at 305. Further, the Supreme Court explained that the surcharge “does not equate with a compensatory award.” Ibid. When those remedies prove inadequate, a compensatory award, and in turn a punitive award, can be justified. Id. at 309.
     Those who hold the legal title of executor or trustee plainly owe a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the estate or the trust respectively. But there is no dispute on this record that Bernice was not Folcher’s executor and that she did not owe a formal fiduciary duty to the Estate or to its beneficiaries. Bernice was in a confidential relationship with only her husband. The burden of establishing undue influence rests with the party contesting the will. However, “[when there is a confidential relationship coupled with suspicious circumstances, undue influence is presumed and the burden of proof shifts to the Will proponent to overcome the presumption.” Stockdale, supra, 196 N.J. at 303.

     8. Power of Attorney- Do not use a form purchased online.
      A Power of Attorney should contain reference to the NJ statute requiring banks to honor the Power of Attorney. Section 2 of P.L. 1991, c. 95 (c. 46:2B-11). A NJ bank does not have honor a Power of Attorney without the NJ language.

     9. Federal Health Privacy Law (HIPAA)- Have a new Living Will prepared
         A federal regulation known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was adopted regarding disclosure of individually identifiable health information. This necessitated the addition of a special release and consent authority to all healthcare providers before medical information will be released to agents and interested persons of the patients.     
       The effects of HIPAA are far reaching, and can render previously executed estate planning documents useless, without properly executed amendments, specifically addressing these issues.
        Any previously executed Powers of Attorney, Living Wills, Revocable Living Trusts, and certainly all Medical Directives now require HIPAA amendments.  After you sign the Living Will in your attorney’s office, provide a copy to your doctor and family.
         Powers of attorneys and Living Wills should be updated to reference this new law. More information on the HIPAA law at http://www.njlaws.com/hipaa.html
      
10. Competency required to sign a Will or Power of Attorney
     Attorneys cannot prepare a Power of Attorney, Will or any other legal document unless a person is mentally competent. If someone is unable to come into our office, we require the client or client’s family to have the treating Doctor sign the “Doctor Certification of Patient Capacity to Sign Legal Documents” It is the client or client’s family’s responsibility to contact the doctor, obtain the signed Certification at the clients’ expense, and then provide the law office with the original signed Certification. A Law Office cannot accept phone calls stating someone is competent. Therefore, it is wise do have your documents drafted while you can drive and are healthy.

More information on Wills and Probate at
      To schedule an appointment for Wills and Estate Planning
Contact KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW 2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817(Phone) 732-572-0500 
If you or anyone you know needs an updated Will, Power of Attorney or Living Will, please have them fill out our confidential interview from and schedule a consult.
KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2053 Woodbridge Ave
Edison, NJ  08817
(Phone) 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030
"CONFIDENTIAL WILL QUESTIONNAIRE"
         Please fill out completely and fax or mail back. This form is extremely important. Your accuracy and completeness in responding will help me best represent you. All sections and information must be filled out prior to sitting down with the attorney.
         Please be sure to check all appropriate boxes. If "NONE", please state "NONE". 
If "NOT APPLICABLE", please state "N/A" or none.
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
1. Your Full Name: _______________________________

2.    IF MARRIED OR SEPARATED, complete (a) and (b) below:
(a) Spouse's Full Name:

________________________             
First                                Last

3.  Your Street Address: _________________________     

City ________________ State ____  Zip Code ______________
             
4.    Telephone Numbers:                

Cell: _______________________________    ___________________
                                                                                      
Day: ____________________/Night: ________________________

5.    E-mail address: _________________________

6. Referred By: ___________________________
         If referred by a person, is this a client or attorney?  If you heard about the law office on the Internet, what search terms did you use?

7. Today's Date ____________________

       We recommend a Durable Power of Attorney in the event of your physical
or mental disability to help you with financial affairs? 
                                                                           Yes ________  No ________

        We recommend a Living Will telling hospitals and doctors not to prolong your life by artificial means, i.e. Terri Schiavo; Karen Quinlan?      
                                                                          Yes ________  No ________
Confidential Will Q                   
How can we help you? What are your questions/other important information?

______________________________________________________
[It is required by Court Rules that all pages be filled out in person's own handwriting prior to seeing the attorney]
8.    Your Marital Status:        [  ] Single        [  ]  Married         [  ]  Separated                       [  ] Divorced        [  ]  Widowed   [  ] Domestic Partner

9.  Your Day/Month  of birth:  ___________________   
10.  Spouse Day/Month of birth:  _________________   
11.  If you are the parent or legal guardian of a minor child or minor children, please check here.  [   ]
2.  ESTATE EXECUTOR
         The person charged with administering/Probating your estate, paying taxes and/or other debts, preserving, managing, and distributing estate assets and property is called an Executor. This person should be one in whom you have trust and confidence. Your SPOUSE is usually named as primary Executor, followed by the child who lives closest to your home.
         Please provide the following information about the person you wish to name to serve in this capacity.
1. PRIMARY Choice of Executor/Personal Representative in Power of Attorney:

Name: _________________     ______________________________
            First              Last

Relationship: _______________ Address: _________________

2. SECOND Choice of Executor/Personal Representative in Power of Attorney:
         This individual will serve in the event that the primary executor/personal representative is not alive at the time of your death, or is unable to serve.

Name: _________________________     _____________________
            First                     Last

Relationship: _______________  Address: ________________
   The two proposed Executors must be filled out prior to meeting the attorney. We do not recommend Joint Executors, which often cause conflicts and additional work for the Estate. It is best to select one primary person, then a secondary person. There is a reason why the car only has one steering wheel.

Asset Information- Must Be Completed - If none, write “none”

House/Real Estate Address  __________________________

Estimate Total Real Estate Value: ________ Approx mortgage _____

Bank Accounts, Stocks, CDs and Assets: __________________

Approximate Amount ____________________________

Direct Beneficiaries of Accounts - If none write "none" ________

Other Major Assets - If none, write "none" _______________

Approximate Life Insurance: ___________  Beneficiary _______

In the Will- Who do you want to get your assets:

Beneficiary (1) __________________ Relationship _______________

Beneficiary (2) _______________ Relationship _______________

Beneficiary (3) ___________ Relationship _______________
    It is required that assets and beneficiaries be filled out prior to seeing the attorney
Any Specific Bequests of Money and Property:
______________________________________________________

[  ] A. MARRIED PERSONS WITH CHILD(REN) OR GRANDCHILD(REN).
       Generally most married people provide that, upon their death, property will be distributed as follows:
         1. Your estate (all property and assets not owned jointly with another person) will be distributed to your surviving spouse.
         2. If your spouse predeceases you, then your estate will be divided in equal shares among all of your living children, If any child shall predecease you, then that child's share to their children (grandchildren).

Names of Children:  ________________________   

LIST THE NAMES AND AGES OF ALL CHILDREN EVEN IF THEY ARE OLDER THAN EIGHTEEN. IF NO CHILDREN, WRITE NONE. If no  minor children, skip page 5.

III. GUARDIAN(S) OF MINOR CHILD(REN) or Trustees of Trust
       [Skip this section if you have NO minor children and DO NOT want a trust. There are substantial additional fees for preparation of a Trust, minimum $2,500 for stand alone trusts]
       The surviving parent of a minor child is ordinarily entitled to be the GUARDIAN of that child. In the case of simultaneous death of you and your spouse, or if you are a single parent, you should appoint a Guardian for your minor child. It is advisable, prior to the completion of this Questionnaire, to make sure that your proposed Guardian(s) is (are) willing to serve as Guardian(s). In addition, the Guardian will also hold the monies for the minor children UNLESS you direct us otherwise. In your Will you can have any adult serve as Trustee of monies for minor children.
         Provide the following information about the person(s) you select to be Guardian(s)/Trustee(s). In the event my spouse predeceases me, I name as GUARDIAN(S)/ TRUSTEE(S):

1.  PRIMARY Choice of GUARDIAN / TRUSTEE:

Full Name: _______________________________________

Relationship: ______________________________________

2.   SECOND Choice of GUARDIAN / TRUSTEE:

Full Name: _______________________________________

Relationship: _____________________________________
[  ] B. MARRIED PERSONS WITH NO CHILD(REN) OR GRANDCHILD(REN).
       Generally most married people with no child(ren) or grandchild(ren) provide that upon their death their property will be distributed as follows:
1. Your estate (all property and assets not owned jointly with another person) will be distributed to your surviving spouse, but
2. If your spouse predeceases you, then your estate will be distributed to your living parent, or equally to your living parents. 
3. But should both of your parents predecease you, then your estate will distributed equally to your brothers and sisters or equally to the children of a predeceased brother or sister.
         Please check B above only if you wish your property distributed precisely and exactly as indicated in section B, 1 through 3, above.
   Additional information on Wills, Probate and Elder Law available at www.njlaws.com This form online at http://www.njlaws.com/will_questionnaire.html

[ ] C. DIVORCED OR WIDOWED PERSONS WITH CHILD(REN) OR GRANDCHILD(REN). Generally, most divorced or widowed persons with child(ren) or grandchild(ren) provide that upon their death property will be distributed as follows:  1. Your estate (all property and assets not owned jointly with another person) will be distributed in equal shares to all of your living child(ren).
         2. But if one or more of your children predeceases you, that deceased child's share will be distributed to his or her child(ren), your grandchild(ren) in equal shares
          [  ] D. ALTERNATE PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION - You may list specific gifts to individuals and/or divide your estate among several individuals by listing percentages to each, making sure that the percentages total 100%. You may add additional sheets if necessary or use the back of this form.  There are additional Will preparation fees if there are gifts, called specific bequests.
       Are there any beneficiaries with special needs, or receiving SSI or SDD? Please answer in detail
          ____________________________________
    Are you or any of your Beneficiaries  are not United States citizens? _______
If not US citizen, extra taxes apply.
Do you have any religious wishes on burial? ___
       PLEASE WRITE DOWN ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE HERE or anything else important that we should be aware. Use back of this page for additional important information:

____________________________________________________
ESTATE PLANNING
    Your estate may be subject to NJ Estate Taxation if the total of your assets ex 2017 update Wills and Estate Planning- Free Seminar
Wednesday June 14
12:15-1:00 PM  
Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen,
2053 Woodbridge Ave, Edison, NJ 08817

      COST: Free if you pre-register by email. Complimentary materials provided at 12:00 sharp. We previously held this seminar for the Metuchen and Edison Adult schools. This program is limited to 15 people. Please bring a canned food donation, which will be given to a community food bank. Please email us if you plan on attending or if you would like us to email the materials.

SPEAKER: Kenneth Vercammen, Esq.                 
(Author- ABA Wills and Estate Administration)
1. NJ Estate Tax eliminated on Estates under $2,000,000 as of January 1, 2017
2. NJ Inheritance Tax stays if assets are going to persons other than spouse or children.   
3. Federal Estate Tax exemption increased to $5.49 million in 2017 but gifts limited to $14,000 per person
4. Set up a testamentary trust in your Will for Protection for spouses and leaving assets to children:
5. We recommend Self- Proving Wills since witnesses often move or pass away
6. The New Probate law NJ Senate Law No. 708  
7. NJ Supreme Court holds if an executor or trustee violates fiduciary duty they can be liable for attorneys fees
8. Power of Attorney- Do not use a form purchased online. 
9. Federal Health Privacy Law (HIPAA)- Have a new Living Will prepared
10. Competency required to sign a Will or Power of Attorney
      COMPLIMENTARY MATERIAL: Brochures on Wills, Probate and Administration of an Estate, Power of Attorney, Living Wills, Real Estate Sales for Seniors, and Trusts.   


Co-Sponsor: Middlesex County Estate Planning Council
To attend email VercammenLaw@Njlaws.com
Other Information call 732-572-0500
Can’t attend?  We can email you materials
   2017 update Wills and Estate Planning Seminar materials
                By Kenneth Vercammen

1. NJ Estate Tax eliminated on Estates under $2,000,000 as of January 1, 2017
2. NJ Inheritance Tax stays if assets are going to persons other than spouse or children.   
3. Federal Estate Tax exemption increased to $5.49 million in 2017 but gifts limited to $14,000 per person
4. Set up a testamentary trust in your Will for Protection for spouses and leaving assets to children:
5. We recommend Self- Proving Wills since witnesses often move or pass away
6. The New Probate law NJ Senate Law No. 708 made a
7. NJ Supreme Court holds if an executor or trustee violates fiduciary duty they can be liable for attorneys fees
8. Power of Attorney- Do not use a form purchased online. 
9. Federal Health Privacy Law (HIPAA)- Have a new Living Will prepared
10. Competency required to sign a Will or Power of Attorney
    Materials also online at http://njprobate.blogspot.com/2017/01/2017-update-wills-and-estate-planning.html
        1. NJ Estate Tax eliminated on Estates under $2,000,000 as of January 1, 2017
      The new law phases out the estate tax over two years, by first replacing the current $675,000 threshold with a “true” exclusion amount established at $2.0 million for decedents dying on or after January 1, 2017, and then eliminating the estate tax for decedents dying on and after January 1, 2018. 
     P.L. 2016, c. 57 provides that the New Jersey Estate Tax exemption will increase from $675,000 to $2 million for the estates of resident decedents dying on or after January 1, 2017, but before January 1, 2018.  For these estates, the New Jersey Estate Tax no longer conforms to the provisions of the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in effect on December 31, 2001 and instead follows the current federal Internal Revenue Code for determining the value of the estate, which will be subject to New Jersey Estate Tax.
Married couples filing jointly will, over the course of 4 years, exclude the first $100,000 in retirement from their income from their taxes, up from the current amount of $20,000.
There will be a $3,000 deduction for veterans of the armed forces.


      2. NJ Inheritance Tax must be paid if assets are going to persons other than spouse or children.
     In addition to the Estate Tax, New Jersey imposes an Inheritance Tax on the estates of certain resident and nonresident decedents. P.L. 2016, c. 57 made no changes to the New Jersey Inheritance Tax.
      Even if no inheritance tax due, a Tax Waiver on a house must still be obtained and filed if the house was not co-owned by the spouse.

INHERITANCE TAX BENEFICIARY CLASSES
Class A
No Tax
  • §Parent
  • §Grandparent
  • §Spouse
  • §Child of a decedent (includes legally adopted child)
  • §Grandchild, great-grandchild, etc. of a decedent
  • §Stepchild of a decedent
(Does not include a step-grandchild or great-step grandchild)
  • §Mutually acknowledged child
  • §Civil union partner (after 2/19/2007)
  • §Domestic partner (after 7/10/2004)
Class C
§Brother or sister of a decedent
§Spouse or surviving spouse of a child of a decedent
§Civil union partner or surviving civil union partner (after 2/19/2007) of a child of a decedent
Class D
§Anyone not included in Classes A, C, or E
Class E
No Tax
Including, but not limited to:
§Qualified charities
§Religious institutions
§Educational and medical institutions
§Non-profit benevolent or scientific institutions
§The State of New Jersey or any of its political subdivisions
See exempt organizations Exempt Organizations:
"Class E transferee" means any of the following:
• The State of New Jersey or any political subdivision thereof;
Any educational institution, church, hospital, orphan asylum, public library or Bible and tract society or to, for the use of or in trust for any institution or organization organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, benevolent, scientific, literary or education purposes, including any institution instructing the blind in the use of dogs as guides, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private stockholder or other individual or corporation; provided, that the exemption does not extend to transfers of property to such education institutions and organizations of other states, the District of Columbia, territories and foreign countries which do not grant an equal and like exemption of transfers of property for the benefit of such institutions and organizations of this State.

2017 INHERITANCE TAX RATES

Class A- No tax is due

First $25,000.......................No tax is due
Next $1,075,000................ 11%
Next $300,000..................... 13%
Next $300,000..................... 14%
Over $1,700,000................... 16%

Class D [other people]
First $700,000......................... 15%*
Over $700,000......................... 16%

Class E- charities
No tax is due

     3. Federal Estate Tax exemption increased to $5.49 million in 2017 but gifts limited to $14,000 per person

     For 2017, the estate and gift tax exemption is $5.49 million per individual, up from $5.45 million in 2016.
    That means an individual can leave $5.49 million to heirs and pay no federal estate or gift tax. A married couple will be able to shield just shy of $11 million ($10.98 million) from federal estate and gift taxes.
The annual gift exclusion remains at $14,000 for 2017.

      Gifts permitted without Federal Estate & Gift tax remained at $14,000 per person. Gift Exclusions
The annual exclusion for gifts is $11,000 (2004-2005), $12,000 (2006-2008), $13,000 (2009-2012) and $14,000 (2013-2017).
However, the amount permitted for Medicaid transfers is zero. 

   4. Set up a testamentary trust in your Will for Protection for spouses and leaving assets to children:
       The Credit Shelter Trust (sometimes referred to as a “Bypass Trust” or an “A/B Trust”) was a popular estate planning technique used by married couples with combined assets to avoid the NJ Estate Tax. A Testamentary Trust (sometimes referred to as a Will trust or trust under will) is a trust, which arises upon the death of the testator [person who signed the Will]. A Credit Shelter Trust is a type of Testamentary Trust.
    The purpose of the Credit Shelter Trust was to avoid the wasting of federal and state exemptions on the death of the first spouse. Instead of leaving all assets to the surviving spouse and thereby exposing the surviving spouse’s estate to more tax, Nursing Home & Medicaid issues, plus elective share by a future spouse, both spouse’s Wills are drafted to establish a Credit Shelter Trust to come into existence and be funded on the first spouse’s death.
       Since NJ is eliminating the NJ Tax, a Testamentary Trust within the Will is still a useful device to help ensure children and grandchildren with receive money down the road. Otherwise, the surviving spouse can spend all the money in Atlantic City. The surviving spouse could also get remarried and do a new Will leaving all assets to the new spouse. Many families want to protect at least some of the money from wasteful spending or a new spouse.
      In a typical Testamentary Trust, the surviving spouse is entitled to receive all of the income from the Trust for his or her lifetime, and has the right to demand principal distributions for his or her health, education, support and maintenance in his or her accustomed manner of living. Distributions in excess of that standard require the cooperation of a Co-Trustee – often an adult child of the surviving spouse or a trust department of a bank.
      If the Testamentary Trust technique is implemented as part of a Client’s Estate Plan, you can hire the attorneys for a separate fee to assist the Client in re-titling his or her assets so that assets are available to fund the Credit Shelter Trust. Re-titling is necessary because most Clients tend to hold assets jointly with right of survivorship and assets must be titled individually in a person’s name in order to be eligible to fund a Testamentary Trust. We work with a tax attorney to help our clients. Protect your money if you pass away and your spouse gets re-married or has to go into a nursing home.
          Some persons even hire an attorney to set up a personal residence trust or irrevocable trust and have the assets taken out of your name and put into a trust or given to children and grandchildren in the trust. Minimum fees for trust are $3,000. This is not something a non-attorney can do on their own. It is also illegal for a non-attorney to provide legal advice or prepare most legal documents. 
      Beware of the “Elective share” rights of a new spouse. Have a Prenuptial Agreement if entering into a 2nd marriage
    Currently, the new spouse who is not given money in a Will can challenge the terms of the Will. This is called "electing against the Will by a spouse". A spouse could receive up to 1/3 of the estate, even if only married for 2 weeks. The spouse must file a Caveat or lawsuit in Superior Court.  We suggest a formal prenuptial agreement in 2nd marriage situations. If there is no Will, the new spouse receives 50% of the estate even if only married three days.

     5. We recommend proper Self- Proving Wills since witnesses often move or pass away
      An old New Jersey Probate law required one of the two witnesses to a Will to travel and appear in the Surrogate’s office and sign an affidavit to certify they were a witness. This often created problems when the witness was deceased, moved away, or simply could not be located.  Some witnesses would require a $500 fee to simply sign a surrogate paper. My Grandmother’s Will was not self- proving, and the witness to Will extorted a $500 fee.
      The New Jersey Legislature later passed a law to create a type of Will called a “Self-Proving Will.”  In such a Will, the person for whom the Will is made must sign.  Then two witnesses sign.  Then the attorney or notary must sign; with certain statutory language to indicate the Will is self-proving.  Beware of online documents not prepared by an attorney. Never use a cheap form on line. No one tries to do their own electrical work on their home anymore or change their own oil. Have a professional do it right.
      When done properly, the executor does not have to locate any witnesses. This usually saves time and money.  If your Will is not “self-proving” or if you are unsure, schedule an appointment with an estate planning attorney. Some law offices ignore the revised law, and fail to prepare self proving Wills. Do not use a law office that follows old methods and does not do a self-proving Will.

     6. The New Probate law NJ Senate Law No. 708 made a number of substantial changes to the NJ probate laws.
    
        Non-formal writings could be Wills under the New Probate Law provisions governing the administration of estates and trusts in New Jersey.  So make sure you have a Formal Will drafted by an estate attorney.
      You must have your original Will. A photocopy cannot be admitted to probate. Don’t leave the original in a Wells Fargo safe deposit box that cannot easily be accessed by Executor 2.
  The law expanded situations where writings that are intended as Wills would be allowed, but requires that the burden of proof on the proponent would be by clear and convincing evidence. Possibly a Christmas card with handwritten notes could be presented as a Will or Codicil. To present a non-formal Will or writing requires an expensive Complaint and Order to Show Cause to be filed in the Superior Court, and a hearing in front of a Superior Court Judge. Be careful; have a Will done properly by an experienced attorney.

     7. NJ Supreme Court holds if an executor or trustee violates fiduciary duty they can be liable for attorneys fees
In the Matter of the Estate of Adrian J. Folcher (A-3-14) (074590) the NJ Supreme Court addressed improper acts by family members in the handling of money and assets. In case of In re Niles Trust, 176 N.J. 282 (2003) the Court declared that “when an executor or trustee commits the pernicious tort of undue influence, an exception to the American Rule is created that permits the estate to be made whole by an assessment of all reasonable counsel fees against the fiduciary that were incurred by the estate.” 176 N.J. at 298-99. The Court explained that “[a] fiduciary relationship exists between a trustee and the trust[,] similar to the attorney-client relationship,” and that “[both the attorney and a trustee act as officers of the court when acting on behalf of clients and beneficiaries.” Id. at 297. The Court concluded that non-attorney status should not prevent an award of attorneys’ fees in suits against trustees or executors for undue influence. Id. at 299.
Thus, Niles created an exception to the American Rule in trustee or executor undue influence cases “based on the fiduciary’s intentional misconduct regardless of his or her professional status.” Id. at 300.
Underscoring the foundational importance of the finding of undue influence that supported fee-shifting to a fiduciary and his facilitating cohort in Niles, the Supreme Court declined to extend that fee-shifting exception in the circumstances presented in Vayda. There, a non-attorney executor of an estate was found to have acted negligently and with bad faith in his administration of the estate, but he was not found to have committed undue influence. Vayda, supra, 184 N.J. at 124. Reaffirming New Jersey’s “strong public policy against” fee shifting, ibid. (quoting Niles, supra, 176 N.J. at 293), the Court unanimously resisted the plea to extend Niles. The Court pointed out instead that Rule 4:42-9(a)(3) provides a specific remedy in probate actions; attorneys’ fees could be paid from the estate. Ibid.
Five years later, our decision in Stockdale, supra, reaffirmed, albeit in dicta, the narrowness of our fee-shifting exception created in Niles. 196 N.J. at 307 (emphasizing that Niles was “directed solely to circumstances in which ‘an executor or trustee commits the pernicious tort of undue influence’” (quoting Niles, supra, 176 N.J. at 298)). The circumstances of Stockdale provide guidance in the present matter.
Stockdale was a wealthy, elderly, reclusive woman in declining health, who had planned to leave much of her estate to a local charity (the first aid squad), when her neighbor Sollitto insinuated himself into her life. Id. at 284-86. Through a series of orchestrated acts, Sollitto with help from an attorney friend, Casale, had Stockdale deed her home to Sollitto; amend her will; name Casale the executor of the estate; make Sollitto the residual beneficiary; and forgive the purchase-money mortgage she took when Sollitto purchased her home that covered almost the entirety of the purchase price. Id. at 290-94.
The trial court found that the Will was unenforceable as the product of undue influence. Id. at 297. The transfer of Stockdale’s home, including the deed and the contract of sale, was also found to be unenforceable. Ibid. The trial court reinstated the original will -- the will naming the local charity as the residual beneficiary. Ibid. Relying on Niles, the trial court granted the charity attorneys’ fees as a form of punitive damages, reasoning that undue influence is a form of intentional tort that can sustain a fee award. Ibid. According to the trial court, the fee award was a measure of punitive damages that was necessary to make the estate whole. Ibid.
The Appellate Division reversed the fee award and “remanded for consideration of an award of punitive damages.” Id. at 298. The fee award was not supported “under Niles because Stockdale’s estate was not financially depleted by Casale’s and Sollitto’s conduct.” Ibid.
Sollitto, and not the first aid squad, filed a petition for certification, arguing that Niles did not authorize a punitive award. Id. at 299. Thus the issue before this Court was not the reversal of the fee award but rather whether punitive damages could be a remedy for the undue influence tort in probate proceedings.
This Court found that punitive damages were available in the probate part in the rare case. Id. at 304. The Supreme Court noted that, in the usual undue influence case, “undue influence is not a separately pleaded tort, but is the analytical framework within which the decision about whether to admit a will to probate is made.” Ibid. The main issue normally is which will to admit to probate. Ibid. If none of the competing parties has gained control of the estate, the estate has suffered no loss, and “the only remedy sought is the admission of a particular will to probate.” Ibid.
      However, the Supreme Court explained that a tort-based claim for compensatory damages can be asserted when the estate has suffered loss, if, for example, one of the parties has depleted the estate’s assets. Ibid. Even then, a compensatory award will be rare because equitable relief will usually suffice. Id. at 304-05. An executor is generally entitled to a commission based on the value of the estate; but if an executor engages in misconduct, his commission may be surcharged, and his monies offset by the loss he caused the estate. Id. at 305. Further, the Supreme Court explained that the surcharge “does not equate with a compensatory award.” Ibid. When those remedies prove inadequate, a compensatory award, and in turn a punitive award, can be justified. Id. at 309.
     Those who hold the legal title of executor or trustee plainly owe a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries of the estate or the trust respectively. But there is no dispute on this record that Bernice was not Folcher’s executor and that she did not owe a formal fiduciary duty to the Estate or to its beneficiaries. Bernice was in a confidential relationship with only her husband. The burden of establishing undue influence rests with the party contesting the will. However, “[when there is a confidential relationship coupled with suspicious circumstances, undue influence is presumed and the burden of proof shifts to the Will proponent to overcome the presumption.” Stockdale, supra, 196 N.J. at 303.

     8. Power of Attorney- Do not use a form purchased online.
      A Power of Attorney should contain reference to the NJ statute requiring banks to honor the Power of Attorney. Section 2 of P.L. 1991, c. 95 (c. 46:2B-11). A NJ bank does not have honor a Power of Attorney without the NJ language.

     9. Federal Health Privacy Law (HIPAA)- Have a new Living Will prepared
         A federal regulation known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was adopted regarding disclosure of individually identifiable health information. This necessitated the addition of a special release and consent authority to all healthcare providers before medical information will be released to agents and interested persons of the patients.     
       The effects of HIPAA are far reaching, and can render previously executed estate planning documents useless, without properly executed amendments, specifically addressing these issues.
        Any previously executed Powers of Attorney, Living Wills, Revocable Living Trusts, and certainly all Medical Directives now require HIPAA amendments.  After you sign the Living Will in your attorney’s office, provide a copy to your doctor and family.
         Powers of attorneys and Living Wills should be updated to reference this new law. More information on the HIPAA law at http://www.njlaws.com/hipaa.html
      
10. Competency required to sign a Will or Power of Attorney
     Attorneys cannot prepare a Power of Attorney, Will or any other legal document unless a person is mentally competent. If someone is unable to come into our office, we require the client or client’s family to have the treating Doctor sign the “Doctor Certification of Patient Capacity to Sign Legal Documents” It is the client or client’s family’s responsibility to contact the doctor, obtain the signed Certification at the clients’ expense, and then provide the law office with the original signed Certification. A Law Office cannot accept phone calls stating someone is competent. Therefore, it is wise do have your documents drafted while you can drive and are healthy.

More information on Wills and Probate at
      To schedule an appointment for Wills and Estate Planning
Contact KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW 2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817(Phone) 732-572-0500 
If you or anyone you know needs an updated Will, Power of Attorney or Living Will, please have them fill out our confidential interview from and schedule a consult.
KENNETH VERCAMMEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
2053 Woodbridge Ave
Edison, NJ  08817
(Phone) 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030
"CONFIDENTIAL WILL QUESTIONNAIRE"
         Please fill out completely and fax or mail back. This form is extremely important. Your accuracy and completeness in responding will help me best represent you. All sections and information must be filled out prior to sitting down with the attorney.
         Please be sure to check all appropriate boxes. If "NONE", please state "NONE". 
If "NOT APPLICABLE", please state "N/A" or none.
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
1. Your Full Name: _______________________________

2.    IF MARRIED OR SEPARATED, complete (a) and (b) below:
(a) Spouse's Full Name:

________________________             
First                                Last

3.  Your Street Address: _________________________     

City ________________ State ____  Zip Code ______________
             
4.    Telephone Numbers:                

Cell: _______________________________    ___________________
                                                                                      
Day: ____________________/Night: ________________________

5.    E-mail address: _________________________

6. Referred By: ___________________________
         If referred by a person, is this a client or attorney?  If you heard about the law office on the Internet, what search terms did you use?

7. Today's Date ____________________

       We recommend a Durable Power of Attorney in the event of your physical
or mental disability to help you with financial affairs? 
                                                                           Yes ________  No ________

        We recommend a Living Will telling hospitals and doctors not to prolong your life by artificial means, i.e. Terri Schiavo; Karen Quinlan?      
                                                                          Yes ________  No ________
Confidential Will Q                   
How can we help you? What are your questions/other important information?

______________________________________________________
[It is required by Court Rules that all pages be filled out in person's own handwriting prior to seeing the attorney]
8.    Your Marital Status:        [  ] Single        [  ]  Married         [  ]  Separated                       [  ] Divorced        [  ]  Widowed   [  ] Domestic Partner

9.  Your Day/Month  of birth:  ___________________   
10.  Spouse Day/Month of birth:  _________________   
11.  If you are the parent or legal guardian of a minor child or minor children, please check here.  [   ]
2.  ESTATE EXECUTOR
         The person charged with administering/Probating your estate, paying taxes and/or other debts, preserving, managing, and distributing estate assets and property is called an Executor. This person should be one in whom you have trust and confidence. Your SPOUSE is usually named as primary Executor, followed by the child who lives closest to your home.
         Please provide the following information about the person you wish to name to serve in this capacity.
1. PRIMARY Choice of Executor/Personal Representative in Power of Attorney:

Name: _________________     ______________________________
            First              Last

Relationship: _______________ Address: _________________

2. SECOND Choice of Executor/Personal Representative in Power of Attorney:
         This individual will serve in the event that the primary executor/personal representative is not alive at the time of your death, or is unable to serve.

Name: _________________________     _____________________
            First                     Last

Relationship: _______________  Address: ________________
   The two proposed Executors must be filled out prior to meeting the attorney. We do not recommend Joint Executors, which often cause conflicts and additional work for the Estate. It is best to select one primary person, then a secondary person. There is a reason why the car only has one steering wheel.

Asset Information- Must Be Completed - If none, write “none”

House/Real Estate Address  __________________________

Estimate Total Real Estate Value: ________ Approx mortgage _____

Bank Accounts, Stocks, CDs and Assets: __________________

Approximate Amount ____________________________

Direct Beneficiaries of Accounts - If none write "none" ________

Other Major Assets - If none, write "none" _______________

Approximate Life Insurance: ___________  Beneficiary _______

In the Will- Who do you want to get your assets:

Beneficiary (1) __________________ Relationship _______________

Beneficiary (2) _______________ Relationship _______________

Beneficiary (3) ___________ Relationship _______________
    It is required that assets and beneficiaries be filled out prior to seeing the attorney
Any Specific Bequests of Money and Property:
______________________________________________________

[  ] A. MARRIED PERSONS WITH CHILD(REN) OR GRANDCHILD(REN).
       Generally most married people provide that, upon their death, property will be distributed as follows:
         1. Your estate (all property and assets not owned jointly with another person) will be distributed to your surviving spouse.
         2. If your spouse predeceases you, then your estate will be divided in equal shares among all of your living children, If any child shall predecease you, then that child's share to their children (grandchildren).

Names of Children:  ________________________   

LIST THE NAMES AND AGES OF ALL CHILDREN EVEN IF THEY ARE OLDER THAN EIGHTEEN. IF NO CHILDREN, WRITE NONE. If no  minor children, skip page 5.

III. GUARDIAN(S) OF MINOR CHILD(REN) or Trustees of Trust
       [Skip this section if you have NO minor children and DO NOT want a trust. There are substantial additional fees for preparation of a Trust, minimum $2,500 for stand alone trusts]
       The surviving parent of a minor child is ordinarily entitled to be the GUARDIAN of that child. In the case of simultaneous death of you and your spouse, or if you are a single parent, you should appoint a Guardian for your minor child. It is advisable, prior to the completion of this Questionnaire, to make sure that your proposed Guardian(s) is (are) willing to serve as Guardian(s). In addition, the Guardian will also hold the monies for the minor children UNLESS you direct us otherwise. In your Will you can have any adult serve as Trustee of monies for minor children.
         Provide the following information about the person(s) you select to be Guardian(s)/Trustee(s). In the event my spouse predeceases me, I name as GUARDIAN(S)/ TRUSTEE(S):

1.  PRIMARY Choice of GUARDIAN / TRUSTEE:

Full Name: _______________________________________

Relationship: ______________________________________

2.   SECOND Choice of GUARDIAN / TRUSTEE:

Full Name: _______________________________________

Relationship: _____________________________________
[  ] B. MARRIED PERSONS WITH NO CHILD(REN) OR GRANDCHILD(REN).
       Generally most married people with no child(ren) or grandchild(ren) provide that upon their death their property will be distributed as follows:
1. Your estate (all property and assets not owned jointly with another person) will be distributed to your surviving spouse, but
2. If your spouse predeceases you, then your estate will be distributed to your living parent, or equally to your living parents. 
3. But should both of your parents predecease you, then your estate will distributed equally to your brothers and sisters or equally to the children of a predeceased brother or sister.
         Please check B above only if you wish your property distributed precisely and exactly as indicated in section B, 1 through 3, above.
   Additional information on Wills, Probate and Elder Law available at www.njlaws.com This form online at http://www.njlaws.com/will_questionnaire.html

[ ] C. DIVORCED OR WIDOWED PERSONS WITH CHILD(REN) OR GRANDCHILD(REN). Generally, most divorced or widowed persons with child(ren) or grandchild(ren) provide that upon their death property will be distributed as follows:  1. Your estate (all property and assets not owned jointly with another person) will be distributed in equal shares to all of your living child(ren).
         2. But if one or more of your children predeceases you, that deceased child's share will be distributed to his or her child(ren), your grandchild(ren) in equal shares
          [  ] D. ALTERNATE PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION - You may list specific gifts to individuals and/or divide your estate among several individuals by listing percentages to each, making sure that the percentages total 100%. You may add additional sheets if necessary or use the back of this form.  There are additional Will preparation fees if there are gifts, called specific bequests.
       Are there any beneficiaries with special needs, or receiving SSI or SDD? Please answer in detail
          ____________________________________
    Are you or any of your Beneficiaries  are not United States citizens? _______
If not US citizen, extra taxes apply.
Do you have any religious wishes on burial? ___
       PLEASE WRITE DOWN ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE HERE or anything else important that we should be aware. Use back of this page for additional important information:

____________________________________________________
ESTATE PLANNING
    Your estate may be subject to NJ Estate Taxation if the total of your assets exceeds $2,000,000.  If your assets exceed $2,000,000 and you desire estate planning to avoid or reduce your estate tax or require a Trust to protect a spouse, please advise Mr. Vercammen.  A Standard Will is not designed to address estate tax issues. We do not do Medicaid Nursing Home Planning.
                  WILLS:
T 1- Parents with minor children and trust for children                 ____________
T 2- Parents no spouse   ____________
T 3 Unmarried             ____________
T 4- Parents without trust   ____________
T 5- Spouse/ Children Trust if assets over $1 million?                  ____________

         PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:  (Please circle one)
Check, Credit Card (Visa, MasterCard, American Express) or Cash
Checks are payable to Vercammen PC
         Payment is required for Will, Power of Attorney and other document preparation at the first consult and prior to any documents being drafted. Minimum fee for Last Will and Testament preparation is $200 each. We charge a $150.00 consultation fee, which is credited to the preparation of the Will or other document. This $150.00 fee is non-refundable even if the documents are not prepared. If there are any changes to a draft Will, Power of Attorney, or other document, there will be a minimum charge of $75.00 per revision. The Will needs to be signed within 21 days of initial consult or an additional fee of $100.00 will be charged. Due to complexity and need to re-title assets, Fees for Trusts are minimum $2,500.

This form was filled out by:  _________________________
                                    sign name
 Copyright 2017 Vercammen Law

ceeds $2,000,000.  If your assets exceed $2,000,000 and you desire estate planning to avoid or reduce your estate tax or require a Trust to protect a spouse, please advise Mr. Vercammen.  A Standard Will is not designed to address estate tax issues. We do not do Medicaid Nursing Home Planning.
                  WILLS:
T 1- Parents with minor children and trust for children                 ____________
T 2- Parents no spouse   ____________
T 3 Unmarried             ____________
T 4- Parents without trust   ____________
T 5- Spouse/ Children Trust if assets over $1 million?                  ____________

         PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:  (Please circle one)
Check, Credit Card (Visa, MasterCard, American Express) or Cash
Checks are payable to Vercammen PC
         Payment is required for Will, Power of Attorney and other document preparation at the first consult and prior to any documents being drafted. Minimum fee for Last Will and Testament preparation is $200 each. We charge a $150.00 consultation fee, which is credited to the preparation of the Will or other document. This $150.00 fee is non-refundable even if the documents are not prepared. If there are any changes to a draft Will, Power of Attorney, or other document, there will be a minimum charge of $75.00 per revision. The Will needs to be signed within 21 days of initial consult or an additional fee of $100.00 will be charged. Due to complexity and need to re-title assets, Fees for Trusts are minimum $2,500.

This form was filled out by:  _________________________
                                    sign name
 Copyright 2017 Vercammen Law


Saturday, April 22, 2017

Dispute over parents care not grounds for restraining order R.G., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. R.G.,

Dispute over parents care not grounds for restraining order
R.G.,

            Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

R.G.,

            Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________
March 14, 2017
 
 


Argued January 19, 2017 - Decided

Before Judges Lihotz, Hoffman and Whipple.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Somerset County, Docket No. FV-18-0318-16.

APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                                                    DOCKET NO.  A-0945-15T3


APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

March 14, 2017

APPELLATE DIVISION

The opinion of the court was delivered by
LIHOTZ, P.J.A.D.
            Defendant R.G. appeals from the entry of a final restraining order pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35 (the Act).  On appeal, defendant argues the Family Part lacked jurisdiction to enter a final restraining order and maintains the altercation with plaintiff was not domestic violence.  We reject defendant's jurisdictional challenge, noting he and plaintiff, R.G., who are brothers, fall within the amended jurisdictional provision of N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d).  However, we agree the facts as presented do not constitute conduct sufficient to support the entry of the order.  Additionally, we address evidentiary rulings warranting reversal. 
We recount the facts found in the trial testimony provided by plaintiff and defendant, along with documents admitted into evidence during the final hearing.  
Defendant and his siblings grew up in New Jersey, but he moved to Long Island, New York, approximately thirty-six years ago.  His younger brother, plaintiff, and his sister remained in New Jersey and principally provided care for the parties' elderly parents.  As their parents' health began to fail, the bulk of responsibility fell to plaintiff, who was empowered to make decisions for each parent regarding "physical care and treatment or to make decisions to refuse medical care and treatment."  Plaintiff also was named the attorney-in-fact to handle his parents' affairs.
In spring 2015, the parties' mother contracted pneumonia.  Unfortunately, this led to medical complications.  When she was discharged from the hospital, plaintiff commenced steps to place her in a skilled care facility.  Defendant and his sister objected to relocating their mother from her home and away from her husband.  Soon the parties' sister was convinced their mother and father needed a level of care neither she nor her brothers could provide.  Defendant, however, wanted to explore possible alternatives to keep his parents in their own home.
Beginning in May 2015, defendant articulated his opposition to plaintiff's proposal to enroll his mother in a facility and later move his father to the same place.  Using text messages sent to his siblings, defendant expressed his repudiation of the decisions and those who made them.  Defendant testified he was making arrangements to provide care for his parents when plaintiff sent him an email stating he permanently moved their mother to the proposed facility.  Defendant responded with disgust and disappointment because plaintiff failed to consider his plan to provide care for his parents in their home.  The charged comments also contain defendant's desire that plaintiff suffer in his old age. 
Plaintiff's email sent ten days later included instructions to defendant for visiting his parents.  In part, the message was informational and, in part, condescending.  It also contained directives so the parties would avoid seeing each other, apparently because defendant previously texted he did not want to see plaintiff "or else."  Defendant's response to plaintiff's email was crude, defensive, and angry. 
Also introduced at trial were copies of several text messages sent by defendant to plaintiff and his sister.  However, the copies of the messages in the record do not include any prompting texts from plaintiff or plaintiff's replies; we are given only text messages sent by defendant. 
Defendant did not deny he sent the text messages, which were admitted into evidence.  Their content, in part, contains coarse, gutter language and name calling.  Some texts include defendant's demands for financial documents and state his intention to engage lawyers and to inform Medicare and Medicaid about his parents' assets, implying plaintiff and his sister had not been forthright in making disclosures.  In a prickly and foulmouthed way, the texts convey defendant's displeasure his mother was taken from her home, she was not encouraged to be mobile but mostly kept in a wheelchair, and his father was not told his wife would never return home.  Further, defendant relates his belief his father was left alone, and plaintiff was ignoring defendant's calls and demands. 
Plaintiff included one comment he sent, that informed defendant his calls woke their father and rhetorically added, "you need to harass dad also?"  In response, defendant wrote:
I luv to harass u now since u cannot speak like a man

It will get worse and worse 

Stand up to your brother like a man and discuss this U r making it worse
U owe better to ur parents

There are other texts, which have none of these traits.  Rather, they convey defendant's desire to provide care for his parents or reflect bitterness because of the decisions plaintiff made. 
On September 5, 2015, defendant and his wife travelled to New Jersey to visit his parents, arriving at the facility in the afternoon.  Plaintiff took defendant's wife aside to explain his parents' conditions and benefits provided by the facility.  Plaintiff testified: "All of a sudden [defendant] comes charging in, getting in my face in a rage."  Defendant told his wife plaintiff was "a liar," and she should not "listen to him."  Plaintiff's testimony recounted the exchange stating, as he spoke, defendant repeatedly held an open hand like "a slap" right next to plaintiff's face, or held his hand in a fist, as if he were going to hit plaintiff.  The argument, where both brothers were yelling, continued in front of the facility's residents and nurses.  A nurse instructed them to leave.  Defendant went outside and plaintiff followed.  As the argument continued, plaintiff asked defendant if he would hit him in front of their parents or whether he would "do it [hit him] in front of a cop."  Defendant "shoved" him.  Plaintiff stated defendant shoved him six times, during two of which he was knocked over and his glasses fell off.  Police were called and according to plaintiff, defendant was charged with simple assault.   
Plaintiff responded affirmatively on direct to a series of leading questions posed by his attorney.  He stated "yes," when asked whether he interpreted defendant's texts and conduct as posing a threat, whether the actions made him fear for his safety and well-being, and whether it caused him to fear for the safety and well-being of his family.  Finally, he responded "yes" when asked if he believed a restraining order was necessary. 
Plaintiff could not relate any history of domestic violence between himself and defendant.  He admitted their relationship was good until their mother became ill in May 2015.  He then testified, plaintiff's nephew, defendant's son, obtained an order restraining defendant from contact with him and his family, two years earlier.  Plaintiff went on to detail this altercation.
Defendant testified.  He noted plaintiff's series of text messages and emails omitted information plaintiff sent, which goaded his responses.  He explained plaintiff decided he no longer wanted to care for their parents and sought a resolution to aid himself and his wife, by rejecting defendant's alternative plan to allow their parents to stay together in their own home.  Defendant stated plaintiff "got extremely pissed-off" because defendant wanted his mother to stay in her home.  Defendant mentioned he felt he was "kicked in the teeth," his thoughts were "poo-pooed," and he felt "sandbagged" by plaintiff and his sister, as they did not even consider his proposal for their parents' care.  He also objected because plaintiff and his sister were not honest with his parents about what was happening.  He made requests of his siblings "two or three times" to do small things that would make his mother's surroundings more comfortable.  He believed plaintiff acted for his own benefit, not in his parents' best interests.  
Defendant admitted he resented plaintiff's decision to  send texts rather than calling to discuss these problems, which defendant felt signaled "a total lack of respect."  He admitted he was "very angry" during the September 5, 2015 altercation, but asserted plaintiff was also yelling, showed no fear, and acted to provoke him.  Plaintiff would not leave defendant alone with his parents and even followed him when he walked away.  Defendant admitted he shoved plaintiff more than once, but not six times.  Defendant also acknowledged a restraining order, which was about to expire, was entered in New York because he slapped his adult son, though he denied injuring his son or smashing his car as plaintiff asserted.
At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial judge entered an oral opinion.  He concluded the court had jurisdiction, even though the parties had not resided together for more than thirty years.  He also concluded
defendant engaged in an act of harassment by telling the plaintiff on several occasions the following:

Calling him a pompous asshole.  Calling him a pompous ass wipe. "That's at all [sic] self-righteous asses, you guys thin[k] your shit doesn't stink."

The factual support for finding defendant committed the predicate act of harassment included this cited language from one email sent by defendant to plaintiff:
What do you think that I am not going to take care of him [their father] while he's with me.  Your email sounds like you are lecturing me and telling me how to take care of him.  You righteous prick.  You and your wife always seem to have a better life chip on your shoulders and that your shit didn't [sic] stink.  Your shit smells like mine, you asshole.  You are the last one who should be lecturing, you drunk bastard.  Stop the bullshit.  And your family know [sic] better how to take care of dad.

The judge also recited this language from defendant's texts:
I will tear our family apart.

. . . .

I will break you financially, morally, physically and mentally.

On July 12th, "I love to harass you since you cannot speak like a man, stand up to your brother and discuss this.  It'll get worse and worse."

On June 27th, "I will come down there real soon."

On June 13th, "This is not done.  I will tear our family apart. Get ready." 

And June 12th, "I feel like coming to you and slapping you silly."

Finally. the judge found the September 5 shoving amounted to a simple assault. 
Having concluded plaintiff proved acts of domestic violence occurred, the judge made findings on the second Silver[1] prong, that is, whether there was immediate danger, which he stated was not "self-evident."  The judge relied on the alleged conduct between defendant and his son, as proof of prior domestic violence, and noted defendant's escalating threats, and the parties' "communications culminat[ed] in a physical dispute."  Accordingly, the judge concluded plaintiff proved an immediate danger, warranting entry of a final restraining order. 
            Defendant filed this appeal challenging the final domestic violence restraining order filed on September 17, 2015.  He argues, the Family Part lacked jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's complaint, evidence of the incident involving his son was not relevant and was erroneously considered, and the judge mistakenly found an immediate danger warranting the entry of a final domestic violence restraining order. 
Our review of a Family Part judge's findings following a bench trial is a narrow one. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411 (1998). "In our review of a trial court's order entered following trial in a domestic violence matter, we grant substantial deference to the trial court's findings of fact and the legal conclusions based upon those findings."  D.N. v. K.M., 429 N.J. Super. 592, 596 (App. Div. 2013), certif. denied, 216 N.J. 587 (2014). In other words, we will neither "'engage in an independent assessment of the evidence as if [we] were the court of first instance,'" N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. Z.P.R., 351 N.J. Super. 427, 433 (App. Div. 2002) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999)), nor "disturb the 'factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless [we are] convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice.'"  Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 412 (quoting Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Inv[r's] Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)).  On the other hand, where our review addresses questions of law, a "trial judge's findings are not entitled to that same degree of deference if they are based upon a misunderstanding of the applicable legal principles."  Z.P.R., supra, 351 N.J. Super. at 434 (citing Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).

[N.T.B. v. D.D.B., 442 N.J. Super. 205, 215-216 (App. Div. 2015).]
 
Defendant's jurisdictional challenge focuses on the parties' relationship, arguing plaintiff does not meet the statutory definition of a "victim of domestic violence."  Applying traditional principles of statutory construction, we examine the statute's plain language, which is generally the best indicator of the Legislature's intent.  DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477, 492 (2005).  The words used in the Act are given their "ordinary meaning and significance", and we must "read them in context with related provisions so as to give sense to the legislation as a whole."  Donelson v. DuPont Chambers Works, 206 N.J. 243, 256 (2011) (quoting DiProspero, supra, 183 N.J. at 492).  
Plaintiff's counsel points out the Act was recently amended, and modifications became effective prior to the September 5, 2015 incident.  See L. 2015, c. 98 § 2, eff. Aug. 10, 2015.  The amendment created a significant change to the definition of a "Victim of Domestic Violence," N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d), which we agree resolves the jurisdictional issue presented.
Formerly, the statute defined a victim of domestic violence as "a person . . . who has been subjected to domestic violence by . . . any person who is a present or former household member."  N.G. v. G.P., 426 N.J. Super. 398, 409 (App. Div. 2012) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d) (1994), amended by L. 2015, c. 98 §2, eff. Aug. 10, 2015).  Courts struggled to determine the reach of this provision, especially when deciding what relationships fell within the net of "former household members."  Ibid. ("In determining whether a defendant is a 'former household member' under the Act, the inquiry should be whether the 'perpetrator's past domestic relationship with the alleged victim provides a special opportunity for abusive and controlling behavior.'") (quoting Tribuzio v. Roder, 356 N.J. Super. 590, 595 (App. Div. 2003) (citations omitted)). 
The 2015 amendments clarified the statutory definition to end debate regarding the scope of coverage of "present household member" by redefining a "Victim of domestic violence" to mean
a person protected under this act and shall include any person who is 18 years of age or older or who is an emancipated minor and who has been subjected to domestic violence by a spouse, former spouse, or any other person who is a present household member or was at any time a household member.
                       
                        [N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d).]
Defendant's attack here refers to the prior version of the statute, making his arguments and prior case law interpretations inapposite.[2]  We conclude the statutory amendments express the Legislature's intent to broaden the application of this remedial Act.  We are required to construe its provisions liberally.  Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 400.  See also N.J.S.A. 2C:25-18 (reciting the legislature's intent to provide victims the maximum protection from domestic abuse).  Consequently, we conclude the Family Part properly exercised jurisdiction over this dispute.
Next, defendant argues testimony regarding the restraining order obtained by his son was not relevant to this dispute, and its introduction interjected inadmissible prejudicial inferences regarding defendant's behavior.  Plaintiff argues the testimony was limited, and its admission did not represent an abuse of discretion. 
We note defendant, who represented himself before the trial judge, did not raise this issue.  "Because defendant did not raise this argument below, this issue is reviewed under the 'plain error' standard, which provides reversal is mandated only for errors 'of such a nature as to have been clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'"  State v. Green, 447 N.J. Super. 317, 325 (App. Div. 2016) (citing R. 2:10-2). 
The Act permits consideration of "[t]he previous history of domestic violence between the plaintiff and defendant, including threats, harassment and physical abuse[.]"  N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1) (emphasis added).  Also admissible is "[t]he existence of a verifiable order of protection from another jurisdiction."   N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(6).  However, in this matter, the admission of evidence of purported domestic violence between defendant and a third party other than plaintiff and the trial judge's reliance thereon presents several problems compelling us to reverse.
First, "[e]vidence of a person's character or character trait . . . is not admissible for the purpose of proving that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion . . . ."  N.J.R.E. 404(a).  The rule specifically excludes admission of evidence regarding other wrongs or acts "to prove the disposition of a person in order to show that such person acted in conformity therewith."  N.J.R.E. 404(b).  The rule allows, however, admission of evidence of other wrongs provided the evidence shows "proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident when such matters are relevant to a material issue in dispute."  Ibid.  
When considering the admissibility of evidence of other crimes or wrongs under N.J.R.E. 404(b), courts are instructed to apply the standard adopted by the Supreme Court in State v. Cofield, 127 N.J. 328 (1992), which requires careful analysis of four factors:
1.         The evidence of the other crime must be admissible as relevant to a material issue;

2.         It must be similar in kind and reasonably close in time to the offense charged;

3.         The evidence of the other crime must be clear and convincing; and

4.         The probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice.

[Cofield, supra, 127 N.J. at 338 (citing Abraham P. Ordover, Balancing the Presumptions of Guilt and Innocence: Rules 404(b), 608(b), And 609(a), 38 Emory L.J., 135, 160 (1989)).]

If the trial judge conducts an appropriate analysis under Cofield, this court will not disturb the judge's ruling on the admissibility of 404(b) evidence, absent a "clear error of judgment."[3]  State v. Marrero, 148 N.J. 469, 483 (1997). 
Although N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1) permits the introduction of evidence of the "previous history of domestic violence," it does not authorize introduction of evidence regarding a defendant's past altercations with others.  Rather, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1) and (6), limits the trial court's consideration of evidence to "the previous history of domestic violence between plaintiff and defendant," and the introduction of a "verifiable order of protection from another jurisdiction," respectively.  This is "[b]ecause a particular history can greatly affect the context of a domestic violence dispute," thus, "trial courts must weigh the entire relationship between the parties and must specifically set forth their findings of fact in that regard."  Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 405.  Any other evidence presented must meet the test for admission as provided by our Rules of Evidence.  See N.J.R.E. 101 to 1103. 
Plaintiff's testimony describing an incident between defendant and defendant's son was not permitted by N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1).  Nor was it offered to be used for something other than proof of defendant's bad character.  Indeed, no Cofield analysis was made by the judge prior to the introduction of the evidence.  In fact, the judge made no specific review of the relevance or admissibility of the proffered bad acts evidence. 
Second, our careful review of the record reveals no foundation established plaintiff testified based upon his personal knowledge.  See N.J.R.E. 602 ("[A] witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.").  Plaintiff never stated he was present and witnessed the events between defendant and his son.  In fact, he was never asked to provide a foundation for the testimony.  In our view, plaintiff was repeating what others told him.  Such testimony represents inadmissible hearsay.  N.J.R.E. 802 ("Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other law."). 
Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the facts at hand are unlike the statements offered by the plaintiff in Rosiak v. Melvin, 351 N.J. Super. 322 (Ch. Div. 2002).  In Rosiak, the defendant told the plaintiff he had assaulted his first wife.  This admission provided context for the plaintiff's fear of statements the defendant later made to her, when they ended their relationship.  Id. at 324-25.  In this matter, plaintiff's statements amounted to nothing more than what he was told by others, not what he was told by defendant.
We also reject the notion defendant's responsive statements to plaintiff's testimony, admitting he slapped his son and a restraining order was about to expire, are curative.  For these reasons, we find no basis for the admission of plaintiff's testimony regarding defendant's alleged history of domestic violence.
Further, when determining the need for a final restraining order, a matter the judge characterized as "not self-evident," the judge specifically relied upon "the prior history."  However, there was no prior history between these parties, who, according to plaintiff, enjoyed a "good" relationship prior to their mother's latest illness.  The judge did not identify what he meant by "given the prior history."  Certainly, the reference encompassed plaintiff's irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay testimony.  Although we are aware of the challenges posed when one party in a trial is self-represented, the judge, as gatekeeper, must assure a fair process.  See D.N., supra, 429 N.J. Super. at 602. 
We conclude the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting the introduction of inadmissible evidence of defendant's prior bad acts in the form of hearsay.  N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. I.H.C., 415 N.J. Super. 551, 571 (App. Div. 2015).  Further, the necessary finding of a need for a final restraining order was not based on admissible, substantial, and credible evidence, Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 411-12, but rather upon inadmissible testimony as suggesting a pattern of abuse.  We conclude this rises to plain error and are constrained to reverse the order.
            Defendant next argues the trial evidence does not support the necessary findings required by Silver to support entry of a final restraining order.  Silver, supra, 387 N.J. Super. at 126-27.  This court made clear "the commission of any one of the predicate acts enumerated in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a) does not automatically warrant issuance of a domestic violence restraining order."  Id. at 124 (citing Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243, 248 (App. Div. 1995)).  Thus, the trial court must find a predicate offense and also find a basis, upon the history of the parties' relationship, to conclude the safety of the victim is threatened and a restraining order is necessary to prevent further danger to person or property.  Id. at 125-26. 
Here, the trial judge concluded defendant committed two predicate acts, harassment and simple assault.  We consider the evidence supporting these offenses.     
"Harassment is the most frequently reported predicate offense among those statutorily recognized in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19 as a basis for a finding of domestic violence."  L.M.F. v. J.A.F., Jr., 421 N.J. Super. 523, 533-34 (App. Div. 2011) (citing J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 476 (2011)).  The petty disorderly persons offense of harassment requires a person,
if, with purpose to harass another, he:
a. Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;

b. Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or

c. Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.

[N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.]

In this matter, we infer the trial judge found defendant violated subsection (c) of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, as subsection (a) is generally focused on the mode of speech employed, and not a statement's content.  State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 583-84 (1997).  Examining subsection (c), there is no dispute defendant authored and sent the text messages at issue and almost all content is offensively coarse.  The question for determination, however, is whether defendant sent the message with the intent to harass.  N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4.  Our review of the record reveals no evidence to support this necessary element, which leads us to reverse.  Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 412.
The Supreme Court has emphasized the care a trial court must exercise to distinguish between ordinary disputes and disagreements between family members and those acts that cross the line into domestic violence.  J.D., supra, 207 N.J. at 475-76.  A plaintiff's assertion he or she felt harassed is insufficient to satisfy the statutory element.  Id. 484.  As the Court held, a "victim's subjective reaction alone will not suffice; there must be evidence of the improper purpose."  Id. at 487.
When stating his findings, the trial judge listed some of defendant's text messages and recited excerpts from one of defendant's emails.  Relying on these excised statements, he concluded defendant committed harassment.  We disagree.
Importantly, defendant did not initiate the email conversations, yet the factual findings fail to mention the content of the precipitating emails from plaintiff.  As to the text messages, again the judge's findings do not mention plaintiff's transmissions, leaving us unsure whether the judge reviewed plaintiff's side of the conversation.  The record provided on appeal includes only select portions of the defendant's transmission and almost all of plaintiff's comments are blurred or illegible, except for one or two, which apparently suggest support for his complaint.  Thus, we are unable to analyze the entire text conversations to determine whether the context shows defendant was sending harassing communications.   
We have no doubt the divergent views regarding placing their parents in a facility was emotional and highly stressful for both parties.  We also do not discount defendant's inappropriate expressions of anger and disgust for plaintiff's decision. 
Vulgar name-calling alone is not domestic violence.  E.M.B. v. R.F.B., 419 N.J. Super. 177, 182-83 (App. Div. 2011).  A fundamental element making a communication criminal harassment is the purpose to harass.  "'[P]urpose to harass' is critical to the constitutionality of the harassment offense."  State v. Castagna, 387 N.J. Super. 598, 606 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 188 N.J. 577 (2006).  See also State v. L.C., 283 N.J. Super. 441, 450 (App. Div. 1995) (holding the harassment statute was not enacted to "proscribe mere speech, use of language, or other forms of expression"), certif. denied, 143 N.J. 325 (1996).
Because direct proof of intent is often absent, "purpose may and often must be inferred from what is said and done and the surrounding circumstances[,]" and "[p]rior conduct and statements may be relevant to and support an inference of purpose."  Castagna, supra, 387 N.J. Super. at 606 (citations omitted).  See also H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309, 327 (2003) (the purpose to harass may be inferred from "common sense and experience.").  However, "mere awareness that someone might be alarmed or annoyed is insufficient."  J.D., supra, 207 N.J. at 487 (citing State v. Fuchs, 230 N.J. Super. 420, 428 (App. Div. 1989)).  That is, a plaintiff's subjective reaction to the conduct, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a defendant acted with improper purpose.  Ibid.
The text messages introduced into evidence convey defendant's concern for his parents' needs and feelings about permanently leaving their home.  They also express frustration because defendant believed plaintiff was ignoring his phone calls and possibly isolating him from his father.  Moreover, they are crude, rude, and vulgar.  However, isolating the latter expressions as establishing harassment, without reviewing the surrounding context, including plaintiff's preceding communications, is problematic.  See L.M.F., supra, 421 N.J. Super. at 534 ("Our ability to instantaneously and effortlessly send electronic messages has created a gateway unfettered by reflection and open to rash, emotionally driven decisions.").  Even the comments listed in the judge's findings as apparently representing threats (i.e., "I will tear our family apart" and "I will break you financially, morally, physically and mentally") are preceded by defendant's assertion of his intended legal action based on purported misfeasance by plaintiff. 
In this matter, the judge made no findings to support a purpose to harass.  Other indicia that might circumstantially prove such a purpose, such as plaintiff telling defendant to stop his texts, is also absent.  Overall, we conclude the record fails to establish the emails and texts were designed to harass plaintiff. 
The Act "is not designed to interdict all forms of unpleasant exchanges between parties."  Bresocnik v. Gallegos, 367 N.J. Super. 178, 181 (App. Div. 2004).  Further, it "is not a primer for social etiquette and should not be used as a sword to wield against every unpleasant encounter or annoying interaction that occurs between household members . . . ."  Ibid.  A mere expression of anger between persons in a requisite relationship is not an act of harassment.  The court must "[d]raw[] the line between acts that constitute harassment for purposes of issuing a domestic violence restraining order and those that fall instead into the category of 'ordinary domestic contretemps.'"  See J.D., supra, 207 N.J. at 475 (quoting Corrente, supra, 281 N.J. Super. at 249-50). 
The context of defendant's statements matters.  Excising portions of his statements without weighing the entirety of the comments, as well as whether they are responsive to something sent by plaintiff, leads to an unsupportable result.  We conclude the evidence in the record is insufficient to show defendant acted with a purpose to harass plaintiff.  N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c).  The finding of harassment is reversed.
Our conclusion about the legal insufficiency of the record to support harassment must not be misunderstood as sanctioning or excusing defendant's manner of expressing himself.  His anger about being "sandbagged" on issues where he was previously included is palpable.  We cannot overemphasize the impropriety of his expressions on the subject, which we find were juvenile, uncouth, foulmouthed, insulting, and belligerent.  None of these statements have a place in civil discourse, despite the heightened emotionality of the disagreement. 
Plaintiff also alleged defendant committed a simple assault.  A simple assault requires the intent to cause bodily injury.  N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a)(1).  Here, plaintiff testified defendant repeatedly "shoved" him during the course of their mutual, heated exchange.  Although defendant disagreed on the extent of the physical contact, he admitted he repeatedly shoved plaintiff and does not deny plaintiff was knocked to the ground.  From this evidence, we can infer defendant's conduct was purposeful.  Accordingly, the judge's finding defendant committed simple assault, a predicate act under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a), is supported. 
Commission of a predicate act is necessary, but alone insufficient, to trigger relief provided by the Act.  Silver, supra, 387 N.J. Super. at 126-27 (stating once a plaintiff establishes a predicate act, the court must determine "whether a restraining order is necessary, upon an evaluation of the facts . . . to protect the victim from an immediate danger or to prevent further abuse").  See also J.D., supra, 207 N.J. at 476 ("Merely concluding that plaintiff has described acts that qualify as harassment and omitting this added inquiry opens the door to potential abuse of the important purposes that the Act is designed to serve and threatens to 'trivialize the plight of true victims' in the process." (quoting Corrente, supra, 281 N.J. Super. at 250)).  Application of the Act is not automatic or rote.  The second prong set forth in Silver requires the conduct must imbued by a desire to abuse or control the victim.  Silver, supra, 387 N.J. Super. at 126-27. 
[I]t is clear that the drafters of the law did not intend that the commission of any one of these acts automatically would warrant the issuance of a domestic violence order.  The law mandates that acts claimed by a plaintiff to be domestic violence must be evaluated in light of the previous history of domestic violence between the plaintiff and defendant including previous threats, harassment and physical abuse and in light of whether immediate danger to the person or property is present. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1) and (2).  This requirement reflects the reality that domestic violence is ordinarily more than an isolated aberrant act and incorporates the legislative intent to provide a vehicle to protect victims whose safety is threatened.  This is the backdrop on which defendant's acts must be evaluated.

[Corrente, supra, 281 N.J. Super. at 248.]

Testimonial evidence showing plaintiff feared his brother consists of his one-word responses to counsel's series of leading questions.  His testimony lacks a basis for the response.  The record also contains evidence directly refuting this response.  For example, during the September 5 incident, the argument was mutual and plaintiff followed defendant outside to continue the argument despite the fact defendant walked away.  Finally, the trial judge noted the tension and stress of both parties during this difficult time. 
In considering whether "immediate danger" was present, the trial judge found:
In some cases that is self-evident.  It's not so the case here.  But I do find that, given the prior history, given the escalating threats, the nature of the communications culminating in a physical dispute, that the second prong of Silver is satisfied and there is an immediate danger to this plaintiff warranting the exercise of a final restraining order. 

            We have identified the erroneous evidentiary rulings of a "prior history" and we have rejected defendant's text messages evince criminal harassment.  After tearing away such factual support, the conclusion a final restraining order was necessary to protect plaintiff crumbles. 
While we find defendant's manner of expressing himself unacceptable and repugnant, after considering the entire record, we cannot conclude the parties' interaction on September 5 implicates the public policy concerns identified by the Legislature, underpinning the need for a domestic violence restraining order. 
The ultimate issue is whether, in light of these factors, the victim was, at the time of the precipitating event, subjected to potential abusive and controlling behavior related to and arising out of the past domestic relationship.  If so, the victim is in need of and entitled to the special protection provided by the Act. 

[Tribuzio, supra, 356 N.J. Super. at 597.] 

The critical fact absent from the required analysis is a sufficient nexus between the predicate conduct, in this case the September 5, 2015 shoving, and the domestic relationship between the parties.  The offense must be tainted by a desire to abuse or control the victim because of their domestic relationship.  Here, defendant's actions during this incident do not show a "pattern of abusive and controlling behavior" of the kind intended to be prevented by the Act.  Peranio v. Peranio, 280 N.J. Super. 47, 52 (App. Div. 1995); see also Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 397; N.G., supra, 426 N.J. Super. at 409.  Accordingly, we conclude the evidence is inadequate to support a finding defendant's conduct constituted domestic abuse.  See N.T.B., supra, 442 N.J. Super. at 215-16 (holding not every dispute or disturbance between family members is sufficient to warrant the Act's application). 
Description: certify
 
In summary, defendant, by virtue of his familial relationship with plaintiff, falls within the newly modified jurisdictional scope of the Act.  However, for the reasons stated, the conflict set forth in this record is not tantamount to domestic violence for which a final restraining order should be entered.  Finally, our review does not lead to the conclusion the evidence supported a separate finding a final restraining order was necessary for plaintiff's immediate protection or to prevent further abuse.  See J.D., supra, 207 N.J. at 488.
            Reversed. 




[1]           Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App Div. 2006).
[2]           In particular, Jutchenko v. Jutchenko, 283 N.J. Super. 17 (App. Div. 1995), which involved adult siblings who had not lived together since childhood.  This court rejected the trial court's finding of jurisdiction, reasoning, "we do not believe that the Legislature could have intended the protections of the Act to extend to conduct related to a dispute between two persons who have not resided together in the same household for twenty years . . . ."  Id. at 20.  The Act's amended jurisdictional provisions cast doubt on the viability of this holding.
[3]   Subsequent to issuing its opinion in Cofield, the Court has instructed the second factor of the Cofield analysis, regarding considerations of whether the conduct is "similar in kind and reasonably close in time," is not required in every case implicating a Rule 404(b) dispute. See State v. Williams, 190 N.J. 114, 131-132 (2007).

Sunday, March 19, 2017

R.G. VS. R.G. A-0945-15T3

R.G. VS. R.G. 
A-0945-15T3 
In the court's review of a final restraining order entered pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, we address the 2015 amendments expanding the jurisdictional scope of the Act, concluding jurisdiction was established, despite the fact these brothers had not resided together in more than thirty years. 

The court also examined the factual support for the final restraining order. We concluded plaintiff's testimony regarding an incident between defendant and his son, which resulted in a New York order of protection, was not automatically admissible pursuant N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1), as that provision is limited to the history of domestic violence between the parties and the admission of "a verifiable order" from a foreign jurisdiction. The court held testimony regarding other alleged acts of domestic violence involving third parties are admissible only if permitted by the rules of evidence, including N.J.R.E. 404, which preclude prior bad acts unless admitted as "proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or the absence of mistake or accident."