Lalchandani v. Roddy (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-003-15)
Former husband cannot use Alimony Reform Act to reduce alimony from surviving separation agreement when parties expressly agreed the agreement would not be modifiable.
Former husband cannot use Alimony Reform Act to reduce alimony from surviving separation agreement when parties expressly agreed the agreement would not be modifiable.
Defendant convicted of armed robbery, home invasion, and kidnapping. Court affirmed, finding adequate identification instructions, no ineffective assistance of counsel, and properly admitted testimony.
Divorce modification; alimony award upheld in principle but vacated on remand because judge improperly attributed wife's second-job income without applying statutory presumptions.
Probate contestant challenges will on testamentary capacity grounds; court affirms, finding decedent possessed requisite capacity despite terminal illness and medical records showing some confusion.
Disabled veteran's layoff upheld by Civil Service Commission despite preference statute. Court reverses, finding inconsistent reasoning and insufficient evidence that veteran lacked qualifications.
Affirmed judgment finding insurance company vicariously liable for broker's fraud under Consumer Protection Act; statute of limitations tolling and attorney's fees upheld.
Reversed adjudication of juvenile indecent assault and battery due to improper admission of unauthenticated Facebook messages and entire SAIN interview transcript containing inadmissible character evidence.
Defendant entitled to credit for pretrial detention on failure to register charge held on that bail, but not for earlier detention on unrelated assault and larceny charges.
Court affirmed convictions where phone records were voluntarily disclosed, no-knock warrant properly executed, plain view seizure satisfied inadvertence requirement, and voice identifications were reliable.
Landlords violated security deposit law by commingling funds but returned the deposit before litigation. Treble damages did not apply where tenants offered deposit as compensation for their own breach.