Alimony can be granted by a NH court in various forms. It can be payable monthly or at other intervals and can be for ordered for long or short periods. Alimony can also be ordered as a lump sum payment. Generally speaking, most alimony awards in NH can be changed at a later date by the court. There is, however, one question about alimony that has yet to be answered by the NH Supreme Court; does NH recognize the concept of non-modifiable alimony in gross.
The Court came close to resolving this issue in the matter of Karen Shaulin-Viviers and Norris Viviers on February 10, 2012. The lower court had found that Mr. Vivier’s obligation to pay alimony to Mrs. Viviers could not be modified because the parties had agreed to a lump sum payment. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision because the parties’ agreement treated the alimony as taxable to Mrs. Vivier. Based on that part of the agreement, the Court determined that it need not answer the question of whether a lump sum payment of alimony could be non-modifiable.
It would be helpful for people getting divorced in NH to know whether they can have non-modifiable alimony in a lump sum as part of the divorce that would be non-modifiable. Not knowing whether such alimony could change in the future makes budget planning that much more difficult. Often there are other aspects of a divorce that make it difficult to plan for the future, like future sales of real estate or personal property, etc. It would seem that this one issue could be clarified by the legislature to allow for at least some predictability.
Robert D. Hunt, Esq.
www.seufertlaw.com

Recent Reports indicate that the FDA notified denture cream manufacturers recommending that they take zinc out of their denture cream. The FDA stated that there have been “numerous reports of adverse events related to the use of denture creams” related to the toxicity of zinc at certain levels.

There are millions of people in the United States who wear dentures. Denture cream zinc could harm your health and result in a copper deficiency. Symptoms may include unexplained weakness, numbness, and loss of sensation or neuropathy. Testing for zinc blood levels can help to rapidly determine whether you have suffered a zinc overdose.
Reportedly, researchers from the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center have gathered information from medical and academic sources regarding the effects of excess levels of zinc such as that used in well-known denture cream products. According to other sources “Experts included physicians from the prestigious Mayo Clinic. Findings were published in the journal, Neurology, and indicated that zinc levels in these denture cream products can cause serious health threats, even leading to a condition known as hypocupremia mental retardation often accompanied by debilitating physical symptoms. Excess zinc also led to seriously diminished amounts of copper a mineral that affects many important enzymes in the body that regulate (among other things) energy, the immune response and age-related deterioration. Copper also impacts resistance to allergies and helps control inflammation. Zinc provides Poligrip and Fixodent denture creams with adhesive qualities.”

The makers and sellers of these creams should be held accountable for the harm they have caused by distributing dangerous substances. Our office is experienced and has had great success in representing individuals who have been injured as a result of exposure to toxic substances. We hope that you will call us about investigation and pursuit of denture cream lawsuits.
Attorney Robert D. Hunt,
Seufert, Davis & Hunt, PLLC
www.seufertlaw.com

In SIMON GLIK –v- CITY OF BOSTON the 1st Circuit Federal Court decided on 8/26/11 that what goes around comes around and since our government is free to film and record what citizens do in public places that we likewise are free to film and record them. It goes to our fundamental right to expect the best from our public servants. This line from the ruling wraps it up nicely…”Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs. Moreover freedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because it is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression. This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties.” When Judge Tenney used this decision to dismiss the charges filed by the Weare Police against Mr. Alleman who recorded their stop of his car via his cell phone he was absolutely correct. We should not have to live in fear of our government. See editorial in today’s Manchester Union Leader.

The tragic death of Sandra Griffin allegedly by her brother Jeffrey Cook, who was suffering from Alzheimer, underscores how difficult it is for family, as well as medical professionals, to deal with this disease. While this sudden tragedy may not have been preventable, Alzheimer is an unpredictable disease which can take control of its victims. With an aging baby boomer population Alzheimer and other dementia will most likely become more prevalent. All the more reason for families to plan ahead for aging parents, and grandparents. For more details see Mondays NH Concord Monitor.

One of the reasons people form corporations or limited liability companies is to keep themselves from having to pay the debts of the company if the company fails to do so. In other words, running a business as a corporation or an LLC protects a person’s personal money and property. But if the corporation is run as a sham, is not adequately capitalized or if there are other improprieties in the operation of the company, the owners may not be able to keep that protection in court.

The courts and lawyers refer to this situation as “piercing the corporate veil.” Sometimes, if a person sues a company, and they believe the company may not have enough money to pay, that person will also seek to pierce the corporate veil so that the debt can be collected against the owner’s own personal assets.

On December 14, 2011, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court, District Division courts do not have jurisdiction to grant the equitable remedy of piercing the corporate veil. What that means is that anyone who sues a company in New Hampshire better not sue that company in district court if they want to try to pierce the corporate veil. In Holloway Automotive Goup d/b/a Holloway Motor Cars of Manchester v. Gorin Lucic & a., No. 2010-563 (December 14, 2011), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held, “[W]hatever the district court’s jurisdiction, it has no general power to grant an equitable remedy such as piercing the corporate veil.”

A lot of people fail to consider how or if they will get paid if they win a judgment against someone in court. They seem to just assume that if a judge orders someone to pay, they have to pay. The problem is that the court will actually look at the defendant’s “ability to pay” before ordering actual payment. If the person or company who owes a judgment does not have the ability to pay, the plaintiff may never get the money they were awarded in court.

While it is unfortunate that the district courts will not be able to exercise this type of authority against sham businesses, it is an important decision to consider before bringing a case in the district court that involves a business as a defendant. At a minimum, the company being sued should be carefully analyzed before bringing a civil action for damages in district court.

Robert D. Hunt, Esq.

www.seufertlaw.com

We have heard that Google and Facebook claim that they are conduits of information and will not edit or change or even correct information that they have direct control over. I think this is an outrageous policy especially when information can be proven to be untrue or is simply derogatory. Here is an article where the Government in India is trying to do something about this…

-Brad Davis, Esquire

Seufert, Davis, & Hunt

NEW DELHI (AP) — India’s top telecommunications official said Tuesday that Internet giants such as Facebook and Google have ignored his demands to screen derogatory material from their sites, so the government would have to act on its own.

The dispute highlights India’s continuing difficulty in balancing the Internet culture of freewheeling discourse with its homegrown religious and political sensitivities. Government officials are upset about Web pages that are insulting to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, ruling Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi and major religious figures.

Kapil Sibal, India’s telecommunications minister, said he spoke repeatedly with officials from major Internet companies over the past three months and asked them to come up with a voluntary framework to keep offensive material off the Internet.

"This is a matter of great concern to us. We have to take care of the sensibility of our people," he said.

In a meeting Monday, the Internet companies told him there was nothing they could do, he said, so the government would formulate a policy on its own. He declined to specify what that policy would be.

"We are seeking their cooperation, and if somebody is not willing to cooperate on incendiary material like this, it is the duty of government to think of steps that we need to take," he said. "We don’t want to interfere in freedom of the press, but this kind of material should not be allowed."

Indian media reports said that during the meeting Monday, Sibal specifically told officials from Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Microsoft about posts that were insulting to Singh, Gandhi and religious leaders.

Facebook said in a statement Tuesday it would remove content that "is hateful, threatening, incites violence or contains nudity."

"We recognize the government’s interest in minimizing the amount of abusive content that is available online and will continue to engage with the Indian authorities as they debate this important issue," the company said.

Google said it removes content that violates local law and its own standards.

"But when content is legal and doesn’t violate our policies, we won’t remove it just because it’s controversial, as we believe that people’s differing views, so long as they’re legal, should be respected and protected," Google said in a statement.

Yahoo declined to comment and Microsoft had no immediate comment.

One person with knowledge of the meeting Monday told The Associated Press that the demand was sparked by a Facebook page about Sonia Gandhi. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.

Facebook has three pages titled "I hate Sonia Gandhi," two titled "We hate Sonia Gandhi," and one titled "Manmohan Singh is a puppet of Sonia Gandhi." India has more than 25 million Facebook users.

Before his news conference Tuesday, Sibal showed reporters Web illustrations showing Singh and Gandhi in compromising positions as well as a site showing pigs running through Islam’s holy city of Mecca, a clear insult to Muslims.

"I believe that no reasonable person aware of these sensibilities of large sections of communities in this country and aware of community standards as they are applicable in India would wish to see this content in the public domain," he said.

Sibal said the Internet companies had told him that they were applying U.S. standards to their sites, and he objected, saying that they needed to be sensitive to Indian sensibilities.

Rajesh Chharia, president of the Internet Service Providers Association of India, said Internet companies need to be mindful of concerns over national security and national sensitivities.

"I am not favoring censorship — self-regulation is the best censorship available to our system," he said. "We should not do anything which should harm the peace of the country."

India has had conflicts with technology companies in the past over information access, and Sibal said Tuesday that many of the companies have been reluctant to hand over data the government has asked for related to terrorists.

Last year, India threatened to ban the popular corporate email and messenger services on Blackberry devices amid security concerns over access to encrypted information. The government later backed down.

The Indian government has made 68 requests to Google this year to remove content, according to Google. The government has also expressed concerns that Google Earth could be used by terrorists to examine targets in preparation for an attack.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding country music singer Mindy McCready. According to CNN, Mindy lost primary parenting rights to her child. The child is court ordered to live with Mindy’s mother. Mindy has court ordered supervised visits at Mindy’s mother’s house (the child’s grandmother). The child’s father is permitted unsupervised visits. Mindy took her son to live with her without permission from the court. Their current location is unknown. The court has ordered Mindy to return the child and Mindy’s mother made a public plea Friday asking her daughter to obey a court order to return Mindy’s son to her care.

The court had ordered Mindy to return the child and Mindy failed to do so by the court ordered date. Mindy’s excuse was that she is pregnant and cannot travel. Most likely the court will not accept this excuse.

Although Mindy is legally the child’s mother, due to the current court order she cannot freely take him with her. If this were a New Hampshire case this would be considered contempt and the longer this continues the more trouble she will be in once she and the boy are found. If she believed that supervised visits were no longer necessary, she should have filed a motion with the court to change the court order. Now she may face the consequences of losing the little freedom she had with her child. This can also be considered parental abduction or kidnapping in some states and could be considered a crime. This is never healthy for the child. The child may experience added anxiety due to the sudden change in routine, loss of contact with his relatives and fear of the unknown.

Should you find yourself in a situation where you believe the court ordered parenting plan is wrong, or should be changed, please see a family law attorney. Do not do anything rash and potentially ruin your chances of changing the court order.

Lexie Rojas, Esq.

Seufert Professional Association

59 Central Street

Franklin, NH 03235

(603) 934-9837 – Voice

(603) 934-9838 – Fax

www.seufertlaw.com

(Communication via blog does not establish an attorney-client relationship.)