PET LOVER’S SURPRISE

The magnet on my refrigerator says “Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.” It is hard to believe, but the United States Supreme Court actually took up the question of whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893). In 1886, an importer in New York City had to pay a customs tax for having imported a vegetable. At that time, vegetables were taxed and fruits were exempt. The collector of import taxes in New York insisted upon the payment of the tax and the importer disputed the ruling leading to the case heard before the United States Supreme Court. As the refrigerator magnet references, botanically, tomatoes are a fruit because they form a flower and contain seeds. One would think that with science on your side, it was an open and shut case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Think twice. While the U.S. Supreme Court decision recognizes the botanical definition, the court stretched logic and adopted the common sense application as to certain foods and ruled that despite the botanical definition, tomatoes are a vegetable at the dinner table and, therefore, a vegetable for taxation purposes. The court stated ‘tomatoes are a vegetable rather than a fruit in the common and popular acceptance of the words’. To one more skeptical, you could simply conclude there is no surprise that the court supported the tax collector. No rotten tomatoes there!!! You, as a layman, may feel that something is so clear and straightforward, and yet, the result at the end of the day is not what seemed so apparent. That is what good lawyering is all about. Courts are made up of humans and, hence, a great deal of success in court is dependent upon persuasion. The lawyer’s challenge is taking a set of facts to court and using skill and the law to persuade a judge of the client’s position. It is incumbent upon you, as the client, to bring your case to a qualified lawyer for the assessment of whether you have a viable case or not. I pride myself on spending time with my client to fully assess a potential case. I’m with the refrigerator magnet, there will be no tomatoes on my fruit salad. Lawless and Lawless In-Depth Knowledge and Experience

In 1974, Massachusetts adopted its first reform of alimony, which was addressed in a later case of Rice v. Rice, 372 Mass. 398 (1977). The alimony statute and case law were significantly reformed in 2011 with the enactment of the Alimony Reform Act. This was the first major overhaul and detailed undertaking of the concept of alimony in Massachusetts. The statute includes several different forms of alimony; general term alimony, rehabilitative alimony, reimbursement alimony and transitional alimony. The statute provides for specific standards for determining income, the assessment of alimony, the duration of alimony, the termination of alimony as well as time factors in seeking modification of prior alimony orders. Not ever case is an alimony case. The determination of whether alimony is applicable to your case is the first question that needs to be assessed. General term alimony is directly tied to the length of the marriage and has an easily understandable formula for the determination of the alimony amount. The formula includes the calculation of the lower earning spouse’s income deducted from the higher earning spouse’s income divided by a variable of approximately one-third. Consequently, a spouse earning $100,000.00 a year, divorcing a spouse making $40,000.00 a year, would pay an annual alimony of approximately $20,000.00. As with most legal concepts, alimony has its complexities. For example, what happens when one of the parties cohabitates or there is a dramatic increase or decrease in one of the parties income? The general term alimony is subject to suspension, reduction or termination upon the cohabitation of a former spouse with an individual maintaining a common household for a continuous period of at least three months. The statute also addresses the concept of a presumption for terminating all alimony upon the pay or attaining the full retirement age (typically defined as a person’s retirement age set by social security). It is clear that the Alimony Reform Act is complex and requires the assistance of an experienced lawyer with a strong knowledge and understanding of all of its intricacies.

Courtroom litigation is expensive. Consequently, the concept of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has developed over the years. Clients are looking for a more efficient and less costly manner in which to settle their disputes. People often ask what is the difference between mediation, conciliation and arbitration. The odd duck out is arbitration. Arbitration is essentially hiring an individual to act as a judge in deciding all of the issues related to your case. Arbitration is typically binding and an appeal of the decision is limited. This is used for the purpose of getting a faster more efficient decision in your case. Mediation and conciliation are more closely related. Mediation is a process of resolving issues between parties using a third-party mediator to assist them at arriving at an agreement. Typically, the parties agree on choosing the mediator. The mediator typically meets with the parties together and separately for a better understanding of the dynamics involved in order to allow the parties themselves to come to a common point of resolution. This does not always mean that the actual mid point is found, but rather a place somewhere between each of the parties starting position. Conciliation on the other hand is a method of dispute resolution that involves a third-party acting as a conciliator. Many times the conciliator is appointed rather than selected by the parties. A conciliator is given more authority to persuade or push the parties toward an agreement. Often, a conciliator will intervene and provide probable solutions to the parties. For example, predicting how a particular judge might rule on a certain matter for the purpose of persuading the parties to move to agreement. As you consider alternatives to a courtroom battle, take into consideration whether you think any of these three methodologies could be utilized for the resolution of your dispute. It is still advisable that you have an attorney whether you choose mediation, conciliation or arbitration.