Thursday, August 10, 2017

New Jersey Child Custody: Removal of a Child from New Jersey in Light of Bisbing v. Bisbing

Following a divorce, removal of a minor child from the State of New Jersey by the custodial parent is governed by N.J.S.A. 9:2-2, which, in pertinent part, provides:
When the Superior Court has jurisdiction over the custody and maintenance of the minor children of parents divorced, separated or living separate, and such children are natives of this State, or have resided five years within its limits, they shall not be removed out of its jurisdiction against their own consent, if of suitable age to signify the same, nor while under that age without the consent of both parents, unless the court, upon cause shown, shall otherwise order.   [emphasis added]
On August 8, 2017, the New Jersey Supreme Court re-addressed the legal standard for interstate relocation with a child. Pursuant to Bisbing v. Bisbing, the landmark Baures standard for relocation applications was upended – in determining the outcome of contested relocation applications pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 in which the parents share legal custody, the Court should now conduct a best-interests analysis to determine whether “cause” exists under the statute. The “best interests” standard should be conducted whether the custody arrangement designates a parent of primary residence and a parent of alternate residence, or provides for equally shared custody.
 
In Bisbing, the parties agreed to joint legal custody with primary residential custody to the wife so long as she did not remove the children from the State, to live within twenty (20) miles of each other in New Jersey, and that neither party could remove the children from New Jersey without consent of the other party. However, nine (9) months after the Judgment of Divorce, the wife informed her ex-husband that she desired to relocate the children from New Jersey to Utah. In a well-reasoned decision, the Appellate Division determined that a plenary hearing was necessary and, if the negotiation for the non-relocation provision was in bad faith, the more-stringent best-interests-of-the-child standard would apply, as opposed to the Baures factors. On the other hand, if the party alleging bad faith could not demonstrate that bad faith negotiations took place, one of the following tests would be applied: (1) If wife could demonstrate a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances to warrant avoidance of the agreed-upon non-relocation provision, the Baures analysis would be appropriate; or (2) If wife failed to demonstrate a substantial and unanticipated change in circumstances, the Court must determine the best interests of the children.
 
Following the Appellate Division’s decision, the wife’s petition for certification was granted, and the New Jersey Supreme Court re-addressed the legal standard for interstate relocation. In deciding to abandon the Baures standard in favor of the more-stringent best-interests analysis, the Supreme Court noted that relocation may affect children in many different ways and also noted the possibility that the Baures standard may lead to unnecessary disputes regarding the designation of the custodial parent. Additionally, the Court determined that N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 does not infringe on the relocating parent’s constitutional right to interstate travel.
 
Prior to August 8, 2017, the landmark decision of Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91, 116 (2001), applied to removal applications. Pursuant to Baures, where a parent already exercised primary custody, he or she only was required to demonstrate (1) a good faith reason for the move, and (2) that the move was not inimical to the child’s interests. As set forth in Baures, in assessing whether an application for removal was made in good faith and whether the move would not be inimical to the child’s best interests, the Court was to consider the following factors: (1) the reasons given for the move; (2) the reasons given for the opposition; (3) the past history of dealings between the parties insofar as it bears on the reasons advanced by both parties for supporting and opposing the move; (4) whether the child will receive educational, health and leisure opportunities at least equal to what is available here; (5) any special needs or talents of the child that require accommodation and whether such accommodation or its equivalent is available in the new location; (6) whether a visitation and communication schedule can be developed that will allow the noncustodial parent to maintain a full and continuous relationship with the child; (7) the likelihood that the custodial parent will continue to foster the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent if the move is allowed; (8) the effect of the move on extended family relationships here and in the new location; (9) if the child is of age, his or her preference; (10) whether the child is entering his or her senior year in high school at which point he or she should generally not be moved until graduation without his or her consent; (11) whether the noncustodial parent has the ability to relocate; and (12) any other factor bearing on the child’s interest.
 
If you have any questions in regards to divorce in New Jersey, alimony, child support, equitable distribution, or family law, you may wish to consult with an experienced family law attorney. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.
 
Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. / Timothy J. Little, P.C. / 2017 – All Rights Reserved
 
Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. offers specialized legal assistance to individuals, families and businesses throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Hazlet, Aberdeen, Matawan, Middletown, Freehold), Union County, Ocean County, Somerset County, and Burlington County. If you have any questions or concerns regarding family law or divorce, please contact the attorneys at Timothy J. Little, P.C.
 
Family Law Practice Areas:
Divorce, equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, alimony, domestic violence, child custody, child support, parenting time, emancipation applications, removal applications, Marital Settlement Agreements, post-judgment enforcement and modification applications
 

Friday, July 28, 2017

New Jersey Family Law: Responding to the Complaint for Divorce

When served with a Complaint for Divorce, a prospective client will ordinarily ask – “what should I do?” Typically, in a New Jersey divorce, there will be four (4) alternatives:
  1. File an “Appearance” in which the allegations requesting the divorce are not contested, but contesting the customary issues of the divorce proceedings;
  2. File an “Answer” in which the allegations contained within the Complaint are denied and dismissal of the Complaint for Divorce is requested;
  3. File an “Answer and Counterclaim” in which the allegations contained within the Complaint are denied, dismissal of the Plaintiff’s Complaint for Divorce is requested, and a counterclaim for divorce is made whereby the Defendant makes his or her own claims for relief; or
  4. Do nothing, which may result in default being entered.
Generally, when service of the Complaint for Divorce is made upon the Defendant, a proper response must be filed within thirty-five (35) days of service, exclusive of the day of service. Although the time for filing and serving a responsive pleading may be extended in some instances by either consent of the parties or by Court Order for good cause shown, a served party should consult with an experienced divorce attorney as soon as possible to determine which form of response is appropriate under the particular circumstances of the case.

The New Jersey Rules of Court permit a Defendant to file a written appearance and, without filing an Answer, be heard as to the issues of alimony, equitable distribution of property, custody and visitation, child support, attorney fees and costs, and other issues incident to the divorce proceedings. Alternatively, a party may wish to file an Answer if he or she desires to contest the grounds for divorce or other collateral issues – the Answer responds to the specific allegations of the Complaint, admitting the allegations that are true, denying those that are false, indicating when he or she does not have knowledge or information to sufficiently respond, and asserting any affirmative defenses. If the party filing an Answer desires any affirmative relief for any cause of action that may exist, he or she may wish to file a Counterclaim.

On the other hand, when a served Defendant fails to file a proper response with the Court, default may be entered. Of course, if a party wishes to be heard as to any issues pertinent to the divorce, he or she should file a timely responsive pleading. However, as explained in Clementi v. Clementi, 434 N.J. Super. 529 (Ch. Div. 2013), by the Honorable Lawrence R. Jones, J.S.C., recently retired of the Ocean County Superior Court, when a Defendant defaults and fails to participate in the divorce proceedings, the Plaintiff is not automatically entitled to all requests he or she has made; rather, the Plaintiff “still has an ongoing obligation to persuade the Court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposal for equitable distribution is fair and equitable under the specific facts of the case.”  Nonetheless, a served party should immediately consult with an experienced divorce attorney as soon as possible to ensure that his or her interests are protected.

If you have any questions in regards to divorce in New Jersey, equitable distribution, or any aspect of family law, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. / Timothy J. Little, P.C. / 2017 – All Rights Reserved

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-family-law-responding-to-the-complaint-for-divorce/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/middlesex-county/old-bridge-nj-attorney/old-bridge-new-jersey-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/justin-smigelsky-esq-3a822156

Friday, June 23, 2017

New Jersey Family Law: Irreconcilable Differences as Grounds for Divorce


 
New Jersey law has been gradually evolving to allow for easier termination of “dead marriages” regardless of fault. Fault of either spouse has continued to decrease in significance, while the impact of filing for divorce based upon fault is ordinarily not significant. It is important to note that each divorce matter is different, and it is essential that each case be evaluated based upon its particulars. It is also important to note that, to properly file a complaint for divorce, the jurisdictional requirements must be met and a valid marriage must be in existence at the time of filing.

 Although the New Jersey legislature has expressed its policy to terminate “dead marriages,” merely showing that a marriage is “dead” is not enough for divorce under New Jersey law – the parties and situation must meet specific statutory criteria before a court can terminate the marriage. Pursuant to statute, so long as all of the circumstances permit, a party may be granted a divorce based upon any of the following grounds:

  1. Adultery;
  2. Willful and continuous desertion for twelve (12) or more months;
  3. Extreme cruelty;
  4. Separation (separate habitations for at least 18 consecutive months);
  5. Voluntary addiction or habituation to narcotics or habitual drunkenness;
  6. Institutionalization for mental illness;
  7. Imprisonment for eighteen (18) or more consecutive months after marriage;
  8. Deviant sexual conduct; and, as is most common,
  9. Irreconcilable differences.
Effective January 20, 2007, divorce may be adjudged in New Jersey for irreconcilable differences that have caused the breakdown of the marriage for a period of six (6) months and which make it appear that the marriage should be dissolved and that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. Filing for divorce based upon irreconcilable differences will ordinarily allow the complaint for divorce to be shorter, less intrusive upon the privacy of the parties and, hopefully, will allow the proceedings to be less contentious.  

 
If you have any questions in regards to divorce in New Jersey, equitable distribution, or any aspect of family law, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

 
Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. - All Rights Reserved

 
Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, Esq. and Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. represent individuals, families and businesses throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Holmdel, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County (Brick, Jackson, Toms River), Somerset County, and Burlington County. If you have any questions or concerns regarding family law or divorce, please contact the attorneys at Timothy J. Little, P.C.

 

Family Law Practice Areas:   Divorce, equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, alimony, domestic violence, child custody, child support, parenting time, emancipation applications, removal applications, Marital Settlement Agreements, post-judgment enforcement and modification applications
 

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Executor’s Power to Compromise, Contest, or Settle Claims

A Last Will and Testament confers upon every executor thereunder, in the absence of a contrary provision in the Will or in a court order, a wide-ranging set of administrative powers authorizing him or her so to act, provided he or she acts in good faith and with reasonable discretion.

Pursuant to the New Jersey Probate Code, unless otherwise limited by judgment, order, or the governing document, an executor, administrator, or trustee shall have the power “[t]o compromise, contest, or otherwise settle any claim in favor of the estate, trust, or fiduciary or in favor of third persons and against the estate, trust, or fiduciary.” As specifically referenced in the statute, this power also applies to New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax, New Jersey or Federal Estate Tax, income or other taxes.

As with the exercise of any power, an executor or administrator must always act “in good faith within the sphere of their powers, and exercise the care, circumspection and judgment of persons of ordinary prudence and sagacity.” Pursuant to New Jersey case law, if the only reasonable action under the circumstances would be to bring action to enforce a claim, the executor is under a duty to bring the action, but, if it is reasonably prudent to pay, release, compromise, or settle the claim, the executor has the power to do so – an executor “may buy the peace of the estate he represents, and extinguish doubtful claims against it, provided he acts discreetly and in good faith.”

In sum, in administering an estate, it is essential that the fiduciary understand the scope of his or her authority, proceed cautiously, and, as permitted by statute, that the fiduciary retain an experienced attorney in the event he or she has any questions or concerns as to whether he or she is taking an appropriate course of action.

Because estate administration, estate litigation, and Will contests require particular knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, your or your loved one’s Power of Attorney, suspicions of undue influence, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for removing an executor or administrator from office. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.


Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved

Probate / Estate Practice Areas:  Will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, undue influence claims, Power of Attorney abuse and inter vivos gift disputes, drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, actions to compel an inventory, actions to remove a fiduciary, insolvency petitions, ejectment and eviction from estate or trust property, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. represents clients throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Howell, Freehold, Colts Neck, Rumson), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County (Jackson, Brick, Point Pleasant, Toms River), Somerset County, and Burlington County (Chesterfield).

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-executors-power-to-compromise-contest-or-settle-claims/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/middlesex-county/old-bridge-nj-attorney/old-bridge-new-jersey-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/

Thursday, May 18, 2017

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: “When Will I Receive My Inheritance?”

In administering an estate, beneficiaries of the estate will routinely ask – “when will I receive my inheritance?” The answer, of course, is – “it depends.”

Ordinarily, it will take approximately one year to complete the administration process and, in fact, distribution of an intestate’s property is not supposed to be made prior to the expiration of one year after the granting of administration. Ideally, administration can be completed within this time; however, the exact timeframe is unpredictable based upon numerous factors including the disposition of any real estate, tax issues that may arise, issues with creditors of the estate, and the degree to which any litigation ensues. For example, in the event that an Estate Tax Return must be filed, or judicial intervention becomes necessary, an administration period of two years or more may be necessary.

Pursuant to the New Jersey Probate Code, an executor or administrator is under a duty to settle and distribute the estate “as expeditiously and efficiently as is consistent with the best interests of the estate.” Furthermore, an executor or administrator “shall proceed expeditiously with the settlement and distribution of a decedent’s estate and do so without adjudication, order, or direction of a court, but he may invoke the jurisdiction of a court, in proceedings authorized by law to resolve questions concerning the estate or its administration.”

While it is necessary for the fiduciary to proceed expeditiously, it is essential that he or she observe the requisite standard of care; specifically, that he or she “observe the standards in dealing with the estate assets that would be observed by a prudent man dealing with the property of another.” Also, if the personal representative has special skills or is named personal representative on the basis of representations of special skills or expertise, he or she is under a duty to use those special skills or that expertise. In the event that the fiduciary fails to proceed expeditiously, or fails to properly administer the estate, action to compel settlement of the estate or to remove the fiduciary may be necessary.

Because estate administration, estate litigation, and Will contests require particular knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, your or your loved one’s Power of Attorney, suspicions of undue influence, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for removing an executor or administrator from office. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq.  –  All Rights Reserved

Probate / Estate Practice Areas: Will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, undue influence claims, Power of Attorney abuse and inter vivos gift disputes, drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, actions to compel an inventory, actions to remove a fiduciary, insolvency petitions, ejectment and eviction from estate or trust property, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Action to Remove an Executor or Administrator

Pursuant to the New Jersey Probate Code, an executor or administrator of an estate, a trustee, a guardian, or an agent under a Power of Attorney may be removed from office for the following reasons:
(A) After due notice of an order or judgment of the Court so directing, he or she neglects or refuses, to timely file an inventory, render an account, or give proper security; 
(B) After due notice of any other order or judgment of the Court made under its proper authority, he neglects or refuses to perform or obey the order or judgment within the time fixed by the court; 
(C) He or she has embezzled, wasted, or misapplied any part of the estate committed to his or her custody, or has abused the trust and confidence reposed in him or her; 
(D) He or she has removed from the State of New Jersey or does not reside therein and neglects or refuses to proceed with the administration of the estate and perform the duties and trust devolving upon him; 
(E) He or she is of unsound mind or mentally incapacitated for the transaction of business; or 
(F) One or two or more fiduciaries has neglected to perform his or her duties or to join with the other fiduciary or fiduciaries in the administration of the estate committed to their care whereby the proper administration and settlement of the estate is or may be hindered or prevented.
New Jersey case law is clear that, when a fiduciary is appointed by Will, removal by the Court will be granted only sparingly and with great caution; generally, Courts are reluctant to remove a fiduciary appointed by Will unless there is “clear and definite proof of fraud, gross carelessness, or indifference.” Furthermore, where the facts for and against removal are disputed, a plenary hearing must be held.

Because estate administration, estate litigation, and Will contests require specialized knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, your or your loved one’s Power of Attorney, suspicions of undue influence, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for removing an executor or administrator from office. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved

Probate / Estate Practice Areas: Will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, undue influence claims, Power of Attorney abuse and inter vivos gift disputes, drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, actions to compel an inventory, actins to remove a fiduciary, insolvency petitions, ejectment and eviction from estate or trust property, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. represents clients throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Howell, Freehold, Colts Neck, Rumson), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County (Jackson, Brick, Point Pleasant, Toms River), Somerset County, and Burlington County (Chesterfield).

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-action-to-remove-fiduciary/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/location/middlesex-county/old-bridge-nj-attorney/old-bridge-new-jersey-attorney-justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

New Jersey Probate & Estate Litigation: Action to Compel Inventory of the Decedent’s Property

Generally, New Jersey law does not require that an Executor or Administrator file an inventory of the decedent’s assets as a matter of course. However, pursuant to the New Jersey Probate Code, the Court may force an Executor or Administrator to file an inventory of all real and personal property of the decedent “which has come to his hands, possession or knowledge or into the hands of any other person for him.”

Procedurally, an application to compel the filing of an inventory is brought in a summary manner by way of verified complaint upon an order to show cause, and is brought in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Probate Part of the same county of appointment. By statute, an application to compel the filing of an inventory by the estate’s personal representative cannot be filed until three (3) months after appointment of the personal representative; however, limited exceptions may apply to this timeframe. Similar to the filing of a fiduciary accounting, an interested party may file exceptions to the inventory of the personal representative; ordinarily, a party may except to the inventory on the basis that the Administrator or Executor failed to include certain property in his or her inventory.

An inventory is intended to notify all interested parties of the assets and liabilities of the estate, and to presumptively fix the values of real and personal property. Therefore, it is necessary that appraisers be designated in accordance with the Probate Code. In any event, it is imperative that the personal representative’s inventory be specific, detailed, and accurately describe all assets, real and personal property, debts owed and claims.

Because estate administration, estate litigation, and Will contests require specialized knowledge, you may wish to consult with an experienced attorney if you have questions regarding a loved one’s or your own Last Will and Testament, your or your loved one’s Power of Attorney, suspicions of undue influence, the probate process, administration of an estate or trust, fiduciary obligations, preparation of a formal or informal accounting, refunding bonds and releases, and the procedures for filing a formal accounting / inventory or exceptions thereto. This article is for information purposes only, and is neither legal advice nor the creation of an attorney client relationship.

Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq. /  Timothy J. Little, P.C.  –  2017  –  All Rights Reserved

Probate / Estate Practice Specialties: Drafting of Wills and Trusts, appointment and removal of fiduciaries, probate procedures, intestacy, fiduciary duties and obligations, fiduciary accountings and exceptions, fiduciary compensation, marshaling of assets, actions to compel an inventory, insolvency petitions, will contests and disputes, caveats, the elective share, undue influence claims, Power of Attorney abuse and inter vivos gift disputes, ejectment and eviction from estate or trust property, Refunding Bonds and Releases, New Jersey Transfer Inheritance Tax (IT-R), New Jersey Estate Tax (IT-Estate)


Timothy J. Little, P.C. is a full-service law firm with offices in Woodbridge and Chesterfield, New Jersey. Timothy J. Little, P.C. represents clients throughout New Jersey including Middlesex County (Old Bridge, Woodbridge, Sayreville, East Brunswick, Spotswood, Perth Amboy, Dunellen, Colonia, Sewaren, Iselin, Avenel, Fords, Keasbey, Menlo Park, Port Reading, South Amboy, Monroe Township, Edison, Carteret, Cranbury, Helmetta, South River, Milltown, Highland Park, Jamesburg, Laurence Harbor), Monmouth County (Aberdeen, Matawan, Hazlet, Holmdel, Cliffwood Beach, Keyport, Keansburg, Middletown, Lincroft, Manalapan, Englishtown, Marlboro, Howell, Freehold, Colts Neck, Rumson), Union County (Rahway, Elizabeth), Ocean County (Jackson, Brick, Point Pleasant, Toms River), Somerset County, and Burlington County (Chesterfield).

http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/new-jersey-probate-estate-litigation-action-to-compel-inventory-of-the-decedents-property/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/firm/attorneys/justin-m-smigelsky-esq/
http://timothyjlittlelaw.com/practice-areas/estate-administration-and-litigation/