In re Trust of Violet Nelson, ___ N.J. Super. ___ (App. Div. 2018).  As Judge Ostrer stated in his opinion in this case today, the issue was “whether a trial court may look beyond the apparently plain language of a trust that benefitted the settlor’s ‘grandchildren’ to determine whether the settlor intended to benefit only some of her grandchildren.”  The answer, the panel stated, was “yes,” with the result that a contrary partial summary

MacDonald v. Cashcall, Inc., 883 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2018).  There have been some outlandish circumstances in decisions involving arbitration, especially in the

Yesterday and today, the Supreme Court did what it does not often do: affirm a decision of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons expressed by the Appellate Division, rather than writing its own fully-expressed opinion.

Yesterday’s ruling, in Granata v. Broderick, 231 N.J. 135 (2017), affirmed a decision by Judge Guadagno that was reported at 446 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 2016).  As the Supreme Court summarized it, the Appellate Division ruled that “an att