The Cassidy Law Firm Blog

Countless people make the mistake of believing they don’t need an estate plan. After all, only the extremely wealthy have an “estate”… right?

You might be surprised to learn that you have an estate—at least you do if you have:

• investments,
• a house,
• a car, or
• a savings account.

Don’t have any of those? How about personal possessions? If you have clothes on your back, you have an estate.

We all want to know that our wealth—whether that’s an investment account or a beloved collection of dog-eared books—will go to the right people when we’re gone.

Every owner of a closely-held family business wants to know the business will continue—even thrive—once they’re gone. A well run, well managed family business can provide for you and your loved ones long after you’ve stepped down from its operation. It can even support your family after you’re gone. Most owners I talk to expect that their business will continue long into the future.

The reality, though, is less encouraging. According to the Family Business Institute, only 30% of family businesses survive into the second generation—most often due to a failure in the succession planning process on the part of the business owner.

Re: Decision of the en banc Court of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit:

Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, Alpha Center, et al

Docket Nos.: 09-3231/3233/3362

What: US Court of Appeals en banc Court declares that South Dakota’s statute that requires abortion doctors to disclose to pregnant mothers that an abortion places the mother at increased risk for suicide ideation and suicide constitutional because the disclosure is truthful, non-misleading, and relevant to the pregnant mother’s decision of whether or not to consent to an abortion.

From: Harold J. Cassidy, Esq., attorney for Intervenors Leslee Unruh, President of Alpha Center, Sioux Falls, SD and Stacy Wollman, President of Care Net, Rapid City, SD.

If you are an out of state resident with an outstanding warrant in the State of New Jersey you are at risk. If you are stopped by police officials in your home state they may see that you have an outstanding warrant and may take you into custody. Therefore, it is important that you do not ignore the fact that there is a warrant out for your arrest. The fact that you are living outside the state of New Jersey does not mean that the warrant will not appear if local law enforcement officers, or potential employers, do a background check. The fact that the warrant has been outstanding for a long period of time does not mean that the warrant does not exist or that it has simply been lifted by the state of New Jersey.

What should you do if you have such a warrant? You should contact a licensed New Jersey legal professional for guidance. They can help you negotiate a safe surrender and help you to resolve the underlying legal issue. If your warrant is for a non-violent crime some New Jersey jurisdictions have safe haven programs where you can come and turn yourself in to satisfy the warrant without risk of detainment. It is also possible for an attorney to negotiate a plea deal with the prosecutor and have you come into Court and satisfy your Warrant at the same time that you resolve your underlying legal issue.

When the unanimous decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in the Baby M case was published, the Court held that surrogacy contracts were in violation of every statute and public policy of our state that dealt with the rights of mothers, the rights of children, the issues dealing with adoption and termination of a mother’s rights.

At the end of that opinion, our Supreme Court observed that the case highlights many of the problems and evils of surrogacy – including the potential exploitation of women – but that the people and the culture must determine if our policies and laws, after careful consideration, should be changed subject to constitutional constraints.

As a result of that decision, the Governor and the Legislature asked the New Jersey Bioethics Commission to study the issue of whether laws should be changed to create an enabling statute.

Dear President Sweeney and Speaker Oliver:

The recent news that S1599 and A2646 have swiftly passed out of committee has caused great alarm in New Jersey and nationally among leaders, authors, physicians and organizations who are concerned about the rights of women, as well as the rights of children. We write with a sense of urgency to ask that neither bill be posted for a floor vote at this time.

S1599 and A2646 are enabling statutes that broadly sweep away every policy and statute that provides protection of the rights of mothers and children that have been in place for many scores of decades in our state. We fear it is being done without proper public discussion and understanding of the harms gestational surrogacy poses for women and how, once legalized, it will dramatically alter our culture.

On February 9, 2012, the Federal Government and 49 States reached a settlement agreement with the nation’s five largest mortgage servicers. The settlement addresses mortgage servicing, foreclosure, and bankruptcy abuse. The settlement covers home owners and mortgages serviced by Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Ally Financial Inc./GMAC, and Wells Fargo & Company. If you have a mortgage serviced by any of these banks, or if you lost your home to foreclosure between January 2008 and December 2011, either you or your attorney should contact your bank to see if you are eligible for relief.

Cassidy3.12.12.pdf

Harold Cassidy, considered one of the leading legal experts on surrogacy law in the United States and lead counsel for the surrogate mother in the 'Baby M' case, gave his commentary on The Matter of the Parentage of a Child by T.J.S. and A.L.S., in an article which appeared in the March 12, 2012 edition of The New Jersey Law Journal. Oral argument in this matter was heard by the New Jersey Supreme Court on March 1, 2012. In his published commentary, Mr. Cassidy exposed the blaring weakness of the case; the class of women with the greatest rights and fundamental interests at risk, the Birth Mothers, had no legal representation.