Recent Blog Posts

Prescriptive Easements

By Stark & Stark on July 3rd, 2014

Posted in Real Estate

The old Woody Guthrie song emphatically proclaiming “this land is your land, this land is my land” could well have its roots in the concept of a prescriptive easement in Pennsylvania. As recently explained in a Bucks County Court of Common Pleas case, Slice & Hook Enterprise v. McGonigal, 87 Bucks Co. L. Rep. 321, 329 (2014), a prescriptive easement exists when one establishes a right to use another’s land for some purpose, through “open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted, adverse and hostile use” (although not inconsistent with the landowner’s use of the property), for twenty-one (21) years. Continue reading →

Alimony and Cohabitation in Pennsylvania

By Stark & Stark on June 16th, 2014

Posted in Divorce

The law in Pennsylvania states that no spouse is entitled to receive an award of alimony where the spouse, subsequent to the divorce pursuant to which the alimony is being sought, has entered into cohabitation with a person of the opposite sex who is not a member of the spouse’s family within the degrees of consanguinity. Cohabitation can be shown according to the Pennsylvania Superior Court “by evidence of financial, social, and sexual interdependence, by a sharing of the same residence, and by other means.” Moran v. Moran, 839 A.2d 1091, (Pa. Super. 2003). Continue reading →

New Jersey Supreme Court Confers Greater Equitable Powers to Chancery Court Judges When Adjudicating Intra-Company Disputes

By Stark & Stark on June 12th, 2014

Posted in Business & Commercial Law

In 1993, the New Jersey Supreme Court conferred great powers to Courts when adjudicating minority oppression claims. Brenner v. Berkowitz, 134 N.J. 488 (1993). Last year, the New Jersey Supreme Court conferred even greater equitable powers to Chancery Division Judges deciding inter-company disputes. Sipko v. Koger, Inc., 214 N.J. 364, 383-384 (2013). Continue reading →

Challenging an IEP

By Stark & Stark on May 23rd, 2014

Posted in Business & Commercial Law

As you are likely aware, IEP stands for Individualized Education Program. An IEP is a written plan, which sets forth in detail the special education needs of a particular child. In general, an IEP is formulated by a school’s Child Study Team, a Case Manager and a School District Representative. Should a parent or guardian disagree with the IEP plan presented for their child, there is a process to challenge an IEP. Continue reading →

Seminal Ohio Case Protects Oppressed Minority Shareholders

By Stark & Stark on May 12th, 2014

Posted in Business & Commercial Law

The Ohio Supreme Court in the seminal case Crosby v. Beam, 47 Ohio St. 3d 105 (1989) set forth protections for Ohio minority shareholders. Minority shareholders sought redress via the Ohio courts. In their complaint, the minority shareholders alleged that the majority shareholders had oppressed them by: (1) awarding themselves unreasonable salaries; (2) using corporate property for their personal enterprise; (3) having the company purchase life-insurance only for the majority’s benefit; and (4) taking improper, low-interest loans from the company. Continue reading →

Residential Issues to Avoid for Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Properties: Are You Violating Leasing Laws?

By Stark & Stark on April 23rd, 2014

Posted in Business & Commercial Law

There’s a big demand for multi-family and mixed use properties in New Jersey. Savvy owners have an opportunity to provide valuable housing and make a good profit at the same time. However, New Jersey has very strict residential leasing laws. If you violate these laws when leasing and operating properties, you can lose money and suffer civil, as well as possible criminal penalties. The good news is that adept counsel can help you to comply with these residential laws. Continue reading →

Can Board Members Vote By Proxy?

By Stark & Stark on March 24th, 2014

Posted in Business & Commercial Law

As busy volunteers, often with full-time jobs, families, and other commitments, community association board members may not be able to attend all meetings of the board. When this happens, particularly when an important vote is pending and the trustees are divided on the issue, a board member may wonder if they can authorize another board member to act as their proxy at the meeting. Such a practice is impermissible and/or inadvisable under the law and most governing documents. Continue reading →

Multiple locations to better serve your needs—

Hamilton, NJ

100 American Metro Boulevard
Hamilton, NJ 08619
Phone: 609.896.9060
Secondary phone: 800.535.3425
Fax: 609.896.0629
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Philadelphia, PA

One Liberty Place, 1650 Market St., Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 267.907.9600
Secondary phone: 800.535.3425
Fax: 215.564.6245
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Marlton, NJ

40 Lake Center, 401 NJ-73, Suite 130
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: 856.874.4443
Secondary phone: 888.241.7424
Fax: 856.874.0133
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Yardley, PA

777 Township Line Road, Suite 120
Yardley, PA 19067
Phone: 267.907.9600
Fax: 267.907.9659
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

New York, NY

5 Pennsylvania Plaza 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: 800.535.3425
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Bridgeton, NJ

78 W Broad St
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Phone: 856.874.4443
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer