Judged Newsletter

Sign Up for THE DAILY JUDGED VERDICT. Our daily newsletter covers law firm salaries and everything you want to know about changes affecting law firms from people in the know. Sign Up Now!


Fetured Job Of the Day
Fetured Job Of the Day


IP Patent Agent with 1-5 years of biotechnology experience


Washington, D.C. office of our client seeks intellectual property pate...
+ read more


Date Posted: Jan 14, 2018

Employer:   BCG Attorney Search

Salary: Not Specified


Location

Philadelphia
1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, 19th Floor ,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 19103

Website

http://www.obermayer.com

Other Offices

+Philadelph... +Cumberland 
+Camden 

Staff Size : 108
Update this Info


News Brief Find out if this Firm is Hiring



No Reviews


Overall Quality of this Firm

For every category, 1 is the worst possible and 10 is the best possible answer.


































































Rate This Firm


Law Firm News
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next 9

08-14-2007

In the recent case of Mencer v. Ruch, the Superior Court held that the income from a supplemental needs trust created pursuant to New York state law from the proceeds of a personal injury action should be considered income for child support purposes.

Mencer, mother of Elizabeth (born Feb. 18, 2003), filed a support action on April 3, 2003, against putative father, Gary Ruch. Genetic testing established that Ruch was Elizabeth'

At the time of the support conference on Mencer's support action against Ruch, he was on public assistance in New York and had applied for Social Security disability. Because Mencer had no knowledge of any other sources of income for Ruch other than his public assistance in New York, on July 11, 2005, the parties reached an agreement that Mr. Ruch's support obligation would remain at zero unless he became eligible for Social Security disability, "in which case a support order would be entered and made retroactive to April 3, 2003."

On May 19, 2006, a review conference was held regarding Mencer's support action. Both parties were present and represented by counsel at the conference. At that time, Ruch remained on public assistance, and his claim for Social Security disability benefits was still unresolved. At the conference, Mencer established Ruch was the beneficiary of the supplemental needs trust created for him in New York. Ruch claimed at the conference that the amounts that he received from the trust should not be considered income for purposes of child support.

On May 31, 2006, the hearing officer entered "another nonmonetary award that could be modified retroactively if Mr. Ruch's claim for Social Security disability benefits was eventually approved." Mencer appealed the hearing officer's recommendation and requested a hearing before the trial court "based upon her position that the income and principal of the trust should be included in [Mr. Ruch's] income available for Elizabeth's support."

At the Aug. 16, 2006, hearing before the trial court, Ruch presented telephone testimony of a New York attorney who indicated that the trust was a "supplemental-needs trust" created pursuant to New York state law from the proceeds of the personal injury action that allows a disabled person to keep trust distributions without disqualifying a beneficiary from receiving governmental benefits. The trustee of a supplement-needs trust is not permitted to make distributions "that do not benefit the beneficiary directly but will pay for housing and other items that enhance the beneficiary's life."

Interestingly, when Ruch's supplemental- needs trust was set up, child support arrearages had accrued prior to 2001 for another child born to another woman were paid from Ruch's personal injury proceeds and that mother received child support payments of $208 per month from the trust for one year until the child reached age 18. As of the date of the hearing, after the purchase of an annuity that provides monthly income to the special needs trust in the amount of $678.82, the trust had a principal balance of approximately $55,000.

At the hearing before the trial court, the following evidence was produced:

Ruch receives public assistance from the state of New York of approximately $350 per month. He had been denied Social Security disability benefits but had appealed that decision. During the prior school year, Ruch worked as a crossing guard for $25 a day. He decided to cease that employment because it reduced the amount of public assistance that he received.

From July 2004 to July 2005, the special-needs trust distributed $19,145.80 to Ruch, and from July 2005 to July 2006, it distributed $16,729.12 to him. Among other items, the special-needs trust has paid for Ruch's cellular telephone and cable television service. Mencer testified that she earns $8 per hour and qualifies for subsidized daycare of $30 per week for Elizabeth. Due to her meager earnings, she experiences difficulty feeding and clothing her child.

After the hearing, the trial court entered and order on Sept. 1, 2006, adopting the hearing officer's order. Mencer filed a timely appeal of that order presenting three issues for review:

Whether the trial court erred in failing to assess income to Ruch for purposes of child support from distributions that he receives from his supplemental needs trust;

Whether the trial court erred in failing to assess income to Ruch for purposes of child support in the amount of the principal of Ruch's supplemental-needs trust; and

Whether the trial court erred in failing to assess an earning capacity to Mr. Ruch.

The Superior Court held that the trial court misapplied the law by failing to consider as income the distributions made by the trust for Ruch's benefit and neglecting to calculate Ruch's child support obligation based on his earning capacity. The Superior Court reiterated: "[e]ach parent has an absolute obligation to support a child, and that obligation 'must be discharged by the parents even if it causes some hardship.' . . . The principal goal in child-support matters is to serve the best interest of the children through the provision of reasonable expenses."

In determining each party's income available for support, "[t]he court must consider all forms of income." The Superior Court cited the very broad definition of "income" as it is applied in support cases. Ruch contended that any payments made from the trust for his benefit "are not income for child support purposes because he has no ability to control the payments."

The Superior Court rejected his position because the definition of income is "simply not dependent upon whether the recipient has the ability to control receipt of that income." The Superior Court further highlighted that other forms of income, such as employer-provided perquisites "are considered income, yet the recipient has no control over his receipt of the sums paid on his behalf."

The Superior Court further stated: "Section 4302 expressly provides that income from an interest in an estate or trust is income for child support purposes. . . . The fact that the instant trust was created under state law rather than a private trust instrument is irrelevant.

Simply put, the fact that [Ruch] has no ability to control his receipt of funds is not pertinent to whether the payments made for his benefit are income." The Superior Court stressed that there is no "limiting phrasing" in the statutory language that requires a person to have control over his or her receipt of money in order for it to be included in the definition of income. "The definition is expansive rather than restrictive." Therefore, the Superior Court found the distributions that Ruch receives from the trust to be income since it falls within the legal definition of income under Pennsylvania law.

Interestingly, Ruch also claimed that the distributions could not be used in calculating child support because the trustee is not permitted to pay child support from the trust under applicable New York law, "which allows distributions from a special-needs trust only for the benefit of the beneficiary." However, the Superior Court held that the actual distributions from the trust to Ruch are income for purposes of calculating Ruch's support obligation and that Ruch, rather than the trustee, is obligated to pay the child support.

Because the Superior Court agreed with Mencer's first issue on appeal it found that her second issue became moot. The Superior Court held that though Mencer's second issue on appeal that the proceeds of a personal injury action should be considered income available for support "is in accordance with prevailing law," because the distributions from the trust are being considered income for support purposes, "the same money can not be included twice in [Ruch's] child-support obligation; the actual trust distributions on [Ruch's] behalf are more than the result of the calculation achieved by annualizing the settlement over the life of [Ruch's] support obligation."

Lastly, with regard to Mencer's third issue on appeal, regarding earning capacity, the Superior Court found that Ruch's admission that he was actually working as a crossing guard and voluntarily terminated his employment because it would result in a reduction in welfare benefits established his capacity to work as a crossing guard and earn some "modicum of money to support the child he has fathered." Therefore, the Superior Court held that the distributions pursuant to the trust were income for support purposes and that Ruch should be attributed an earning capacity in line with his prior job as a crossing guard.

At the conclusion of its opinion, the Superior Court stated: "[w]e feel compelled to make a closing observation. While we sympathize that [Ruch] may have a limited capacity to earn money, he acknowledged an ability to work at least a few hours a day as a crossing guard. Instead, he chose to do nothing, while enjoying the benefits of cable television and a cellular telephone, yet [Mencer] struggles to feed and clothe their child. This is a child he fathered after he suffered his head injury, which evidences an ability to perform at least some physical functions." The Superior Court then reversed the trial court's order and remanded the proceedings consistent with their opinion.

This case is a reminder that the definition of income for support purposes is very broad. Further, this case reminds the practitioner that though a party may be disabled, his or her obligation to provide some form of support to his or her child will remain. Because the courts will regularly look to the past to predict the future with regard to uncertain and inconsistent income, obligors, such as Ruch (who cannot predict what his trust income/distributions will be each year), may petition to modify the support order at the end of a year if a substantial fluctuation to his/her income occurred in that year.

MICHAEL E. BERTIN is an associate in the Philadelphia law firm of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel. Bertin is co-chairman of the custody committee and a member of the executive committee of the family law section of the Philadelphia Bar Association.
08-07-2007

Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP is pleased to announce that Michael E. Bertin, an associate in the Litigation department of the firm, has recently been selected as one of this year’s Pennsylvania “Lawyers on the Fast Track.”

Bertin is one of 35 Pennsylvania attorneys under the age of 40 selected by The Legal Intelligencer and Pennsylvania Law Weekly for this honor that recognizes the future leaders of Pennsylvania’s legal community. The winners will be honored at the annual Fast Track Dinner in Philadelphia on Sept. 20, 2007. His profile, along with this year’s honorees, will be included in The Legal Intelligencer’s supplement to be published on September 24, 2007.

Bertin concentrates his practice in the area of family law, where he handles all phases of the negotiation and litigation of domestic relations cases, including divorce, custody, support, alimony, property distribution, adoption, prenuptial agreements and related issues.

Bertin is a former member of Council of the Family Law Section of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and is also co-chair of that Section’s Program Committee. He is co-chair of the Custody Committee and serves on the Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association.

Bertin was also selected as a “Pennsylvania 2006 Rising Star” in the December issue of Philadelphia magazine and the Law and Politics Magazine, Pennsylvania Super Lawyers - “Rising Stars 2006” edition.

He is a frequent lecturer and author on family law topics. He recently co-presented “Prepping Your Client for Their Custody Evaluation” at the Pennsylvania Bar Association Family Law Section 2007 Summer Meeting in Cambridge, MD.

His recent publications include: “Supplemental-Needs Trust Is Considered Income in Child-Support Case,” The Legal Intelligencer, Vol. 236, No. 31 (August 14, 2007) and “First Impression: Bifurcation Under the Amended Divorce Code,” The Legal Intelligencer, Vol. 235, No. 113 (June 12, 2007); Case Notes in the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Pennsylvania Family Lawyer, including “Superior Court Says No to Netherlands Child Relocation Request,” Vol. 29, No.1 (May 2007).

He received his Bachelor of Arts degree, cum laude, from the University of Pittsburgh and his Juris Doctor from Temple University School of Law. He was the recipient of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyer’s Eric D. Turner Award at Temple University School of Law.


Primary Practice Areas

Business and Finance, Real Estate, Litigation, Labor and Employment, Regulatory, Bankruptcy, Intellectual Property, Estate Planning, Environmental, Domestic Relations, Public Finance and Health Care.

Update this Info




Legal Jobs

DATE LOCATION JOB DETAIL
Jun 19,2017 USA-PA-Philadelphia Legal Staff Legal Secretary in Philadelphia, PA

Bankruptcy Legal Secretary
Candidate should have 3+ years of legal secretarial experience, preferably with some of that experience in the following areas: Docket control use of PACER a plus. e-filing in all courts. Chapter 11 proceedings (preferred but not mandatory). fee applications. motions.
Mar 17,2017 USA-PA-Philadelphia Legal Staff Paralegal in Philadelphia, PA

Paralegal
Candidate must be experienced in electronic management of documents, litigation support software and knowledgeable of PA and NJ legal requirements. Relativity experience and management of ESI (electronically stored information) and document production a plus. Trial preparation and d
Jan 27,2017 USA-PA-Philadelphia Legal Staff Paralegal in Philadelphia, PA

Litigation Paralegal
Candidate must be experienced in electronic management of documents, litigation support software and knowledgeable of PA and NJ legal requirements. Relativity experience and management of ESI (electronically stored information) & document production a plus. Trial preparation an

Top Performing Jobs
Paralegal / Legal Assistant

USA-MD-Rockville

Busy AV rated Rockville criminal and family law firm looking for experienced adm...

Apply Now
LITIGATION ATTORNEY / RESEARCH ATTORNEY

USA-ME-Lewiston

Berman & Simmons, P.A., a top-ranked personal injury and medical malpractice law...

Apply Now
Environmental Associate

USA-NJ-West Orange

Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC has an immediate opening for an environmental a...

Apply Now
JDJournal - Send Tips
Senior Litigation Attorney with some experience

USA-CA-Orange

Irvine office of our client seeks senior litigation attorney. The candidate shou...

Apply Now
Trademark Attorney with 5+ years of prosecution experience

USA-CA-San Diego

San Diego office of our client seeks trademark attorney with 5+ years of prosecu...

Apply Now
Attorney with 2-7 years of general commercial litigation experience

USA-FL-Sarasota

Sarasota office of our client seeks attorney with 2-7 years of general commercia...

Apply Now
Dear Judged


Dear Your Honor,
Dear Judge,

Do you ever experience any physical danger in the courtroom?  You do deal with all those criminals, right? 

Sincerly,

Concerned Bailiff's Mommy



+ more Judged Dear
+ write to Your Honor
Law Firm NewsMakers


1.
News Corp. Considers Splitting

LawCrossing

The Attorney Profile column is sponsored by LawCrossing, America`s leading legal job site.

Summary: This is a great question. There are many factors that impact a candidate’s ability to lateral from an overseas law firm to a top U.S. law firm.
Search Jobs Direct from Employer Career Pages
 Keywords:
 Location:
 
JDJournal

Enter your email address and start getting breaking law firm and legal news right now!



Every Alert

Alert once a day

 

BCG Attorney Search

You may search for specific jobs or browse our job listings.

Locations:

(hold down ctrl to choose multiple)

Minimum Years of Experience:

Primary Area of Practice:

 Partner Level Job(s)

Search Now