04/11/12: Talmage Lord v. Board of Review (App. Div. 4/11/12) - In this published decision, the court held that a person who was forced to resign from his job when he temporarily lost his transportation to work should not have been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. In this case, the appellant informed his employer that his car had broken down and that he was pursuing alternate transportation options so that he could report to work on his next scheduled work day, three days later. Instead of allowing him those three days to find another way to work, the employer told him that he “had to resign,” effective immediately. The appellant considered himself terminated and applied for unemployment benefits, but he was disqualified from benefits for having voluntarily quit his job without good cause attributable to the work (a complete disqualification from unemployment benefits). On appeal, the Appellate Division held that a separation from work initiated by the employer should not be construed as a “voluntary quit.” The court said that, although commuting problems are generally considered to be “personal” problems and “voluntary quits” for the purposes of unemployment compensation, a temporary commuting problem, as here, does not warrant a disqualification for “voluntary quit.” Further, the court rejected the Board of Review’s contention that a terminated worker must pursue reemployment before he or she may be eligible for unemployment benefits. Finally, the court affirmed that the Unemployment Compensation Law is a remedial statute that should be construed in favor of granting unemployment benefits wherever possible.
|
03/15/12: Selling Law Firm Accounts Receivable to a Third Party or Retaining a Collection Agency for Collection of Fees Payable by Former Clients - According to Opinion 723 of the Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, it is ethical for a law firm to sell past-due accounts to a third party for collection or to use a collection agency for fees owed by past clients (not current ones), provided that the lawyer notify the client about fee arbitration, try to reasonably determine that the collection agency will not use improper or illegal measures to collect, and that no confidential information is provided to the agency beyond what is necessary to collect the debt. Although not addressed in the opinion, the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, along with other consumer protection laws, will likely apply to the conduct of third-party debt collectors and purchasers seeking to collect on past-due law firm accounts.
|
01/13/12: Bell Tower Condominium Assoc. v. Haffert, et al. - In a reported decision, the Appellate Division broadly interprets the term “housing-related disputes” as used the Condominium Act (N.J.S.A. 46:8B1-38). A portion of the Act requires condominium associations to establish a “fair and efficient procedure” for the resolution of housing-related disputes between individual unit owners and the association, or between unit owners, as an alternative to litigation. But the Act leaves undefined the term “housing-related disputes.” In reversing the trial court decision holding the defendants liable for their refusal to pay their portion of a special assessment imposed by the association’s board for various repairs and improvements to the condominiums premises, the Appellate Division broadly construes “housing-related disputes” to encompass any dispute arising directly from the condominium relationship.
|