Source: http://civiljury.blogspot.com/
Timestamp: 2020-05-28 12:39:47
Document Index: 32652171

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1040', '§ 52', '§ 90', '§ 5935', '§ 9', '§ 5']

Kenneth Vercammen Edison, NJ (732) 572-0500 More information at www.njlaws.com To email Ken V, go here: http://www.njlaws.com/ContactKenV.html
Client to Prepare Interrogatory Questions in Civil Cases
Under the court rules, the attorneys for the different parties must provide what is known as discovery. The clients must answer written questions, under oath, posed by the adversary attorney. These are called Interrogatories.
I highly recommend my clients to prepare specific Interrogatory questions, in writing, which we will pose to our adversary to have their client answer.
You could also prepare a list of specific documents, which you demand that they produce. Therefore, I am recommending that you type up between twenty to forty questions to pose upon the other side, together with a list of any documents, which you would like to see which are in their possession. These are similar to questions you may want to have us ask the other person at a deposition. We request that you email questions to our office within fourteen days.
The parties can also be required to produce documents under a formal written request to produce documents. We call these Request for Documents.
The other discovery technique is called Request for Admissions. That is where you type up specific facts, where the answer would be “yes”. These are different from Interrogatory questions.
In some cases, questioning under oath before a court reporter is held.
That is called a deposition, but the costs often exceed $1,000.00.
Posted by Vercammen Law at 6:13 AM
Mentor program- Edison, NJ 3rdyear law students and law grads
Kenneth Vercammen’s Law Office has a mentor opportunity for new lawyer or recent unemployed attorney to get experience and go to court and learn NJ Law office procedures. We have had 4 new attorneys in past year participate in the mentoring experience where they can learn NJ Law Office Procedure.
Go to court and get court experience. Excellent opportunity to jump-start a career. Attorney will get to represent people in Municipal Courts in Middlesex, Union and Monmouth County and meet the top Prosecutors and Judges. Must be admitted in NJ and have a car.
Excellent mentoring position for the right attorney.
Attorneys interested should fax, email or mail a resume and cover letter.
2053 Woodbridge Ave. Edison, NJ 08817(Phone) 732-572-0500 (Fax) 732-572-0030 vercammenlaw@njlaws.com
- Whatever else needed to assist clients [ex Motions,]
Will many attorneys starting out as solos, this helps them get on their feet and handle Public Defender cases.
About Mentor Program Director: Kenneth Vercammenis an Edison, Middlesex County, NJ trial attorney. Mr. Vercammen has published 125 articles in national and New Jersey publications on criminal, traffic, DWI, probate, estate planning, and litigation topics. He has been selected to write the book on Criminal Law for the American Bar Association. He often lectures to trial lawyers of the American Bar Association, New Jersey State Bar Association and Middlesex County Bar Association.
In his private practice, he has devoted a substantial portion of his professional time to the preparation for trial of litigated matters. He has appeared in Courts throughout New Jersey several times each week on Criminal personal injury matters, Municipal Court trials, and contested Probate hearings. He serves as the Editor of the popular legal websites www.njlaws.comand www.BeNotGuilty.com
He has served as a Special Acting Prosecutor in nine different cities and towns in New Jersey and also successfully handled over One thousand Municipal Court and Superior Court matters in the past 25 years. Kenneth Vercammen was included in the 2013 “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters. He was a member of the Law Review and top 10% law school grad. Metuchen NJ Public Defender Volunteer Internships available for law students and recent law grads 2019 & law office free space
The Public Defenders provide Indigent individuals charged with criminal or serious motor vehicle charges with free or limited cost legal defense. The Public Defender of Metuchen invites students to apply to serve as volunteer interns. Volunteer Law Clerk interns will attend Wednesday evening and occasional Friday morning court sessions. Please post for your students. If your law school uses Simplicity and this is not currently posted, please email us at Vercammenlaw@njlaws.com
RULE 4:87. Actions For The Settlement Of Accounts 4:87-1. Procedure
a) Actions to settle the accounts of executors, administrators, testamentary trustees,
non-testamentary trustees, guardians and assignees for the benefit of creditors shall be
brought in the county where such fiduciaries received their appointment. The action shall
be commenced by the filing of a complaint in the Superior Court, Chancery Division, and
upon issuance of an order to show cause pursuant to R. 4:83. A non-testamentary
trustee shall annex to the complaint a copy of the written instrument creating the trust
and stating its terms. The order to show cause shall state the amount of commissions
and attorney's fee, if any, which are applied for.
 (b) An action may be commenced by an interested person to compel a fiduciary referred
to in paragraph (a) of this rule to settle his or her account, and, in appropriate
circumstances, to file an inventory and appraisement.
Now, even in a Divorce case, the [opposing party] may be called in any case. See LERMAN v. LERMAN 245 N.J. Super. 312 (1990):
“Under what circumstances may an adverse party in a matrimonial action be called as a witness and to what extent shall that testimony be binding? This court holds not only that an adverse party may be called as a witness, but that such witness shall be deemed "hostile per se," thus triggering all concomitant means of examination permissible under the law.
[245 N.J. Super. 314]
[245 N.J. Super. 315]
It has been generally held that in the absence of a statute or rule of procedure providing otherwise, the calling of an adverse party as a witness binds the calling party as to the credibility and conclusiveness of the testimony unless same is contradicted. 32A C.J.S., Evidence, § 1040(2). In the past, New Jersey courts also followed this premise. Krafte v. Belfus, 114 N.J. Eq. 207, 168 A. 755 (Ch. 1933). Many jurisdictions have adopted statutes or rules which serve to modify or abrogate the harshness of the obvious result when, in a case such as this hotly contested matrimonial action, the information solicited is known solely by the other spouse. See Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-178 (West 1960) (amended 1982) (Adverse parties may be compelled to testify); Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 90.608(2) (Who may impeach); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5935 (Purdon 1978) (Examination
[245 N.J. Super. 316]
of person adversely interested); R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-17-14 (1985 Reenactment) (Adverse party as witness). The Appellate Division has held that while many cases have stood for the proposition that a party is bound by testimony of the witness called, "such a rule, so broadly stated, ill serves the cause of justice." Becker v. Eisenstodt, 60 N.J.Super. 240, 248, 158 A.2d 706 (App.Div. 1960). As in that medical malpractice suit where defendant had special knowledge of the circumstances under which plaintiff was injured, so too this defendant was privy to information which could best be elicited through testimony given under oath and with great leeway afforded the scope of such examination.
The Federal Rules of Evidence state that when "a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions." Fed.R.Evid. 611(c). This rule is an exception to the traditional proposition that leading questions are improper. The rule also deals with categories of witnesses to be automatically regarded and treated as hostile. See Fed.R.Evid. 611(c) advisory committee's note. It is clear that a party to a divorce action would be considered a hostile witness under the federal rules. However, New Jersey has not adopted this federal rule as its own. New Jersey law states that "[except as otherwise provided by law, when any party is called as a witness by the adverse party he shall be subject to the same rules as to examination and cross-examination as other witnesses." N.J.S.A. 2A:81-11. Thus, based only on a reading of the statute, an adverse party called as a witness by the other side cannot be asked leading questions. Yet case law has recently given broader discretion to the court and has brought New Jersey closer to the more liberal federal rules. See Application of Howard Savings Bank, Newark, Essex County, 143 N.J.Super. 1, 362 A.2d 592(App.Div. 1976); State v. Rajnai, 132 N.J.Super. 530, 334 A.2d 364 (App.Div. 1975).
Attention is called to N.J.S.A. 2A:81-6, which states that parties in all civil actions "shall be sworn and shall give
[245 N.J. Super. 317]
evidence therein when called by the adverse party.... This section shall not apply to actions in divorce." N.J.S.A. 2A:81-5, L. 1900, c. 150, § 5, since repealed, referred to the testimony of a party "in any action or proceeding for divorce on account of adultery to give evidence for the other, except to prove the fact of marriage...." The Court of Errors and Appeals interpreted that repealed section of the statute when a wife was called to corroborate evidence of her adultery, and held that while a husband or wife was not a compellable witness, neither was the spouse in anyway incompetent to testify. Schaab v. Schaab, 66 N.J. Eq. 334, 57 A. 1090 (E. & A. 1903). As the Legislature has not passed a new law which would guide courts with greater specificity when a party is called as a witness in a matrimonial action, and N.J.S.A. 2A:81-6, based on its historical application, is clearly not meant to eliminate the possibility of such testimony, this court must apply its own standards in order to attain a justifiable end commensurate with the fluid nature of the law, in general, and the growing complexity of divorce law, in particular. Thus, in order for plaintiff to glean as much necessary factual information regarding defendant's income and marital assets so that an equitable decision can be reached, defendant here may be called to testify as he would in any other civil litigation and the procedures which would restrict plaintiff to direct examination and bind her by his testimony "must yield to reason and common sense." Becker v. Eisenstodt, supra, 60 N.J. Super. at 249, 158 A.2d 706. See also Hickman v. Pace, 82 N.J.Super. 483, 198 A.2d 123 (App.Div. 1964). Therefore, plaintiff need not vouch for defendant's truthfulness, but may leave same to the judgment of the court based upon the answers given to all questions asked.
This is not to say that when an adverse party is called to the stand that party may not claim any of those privileges afforded to all witnesses under the New Jersey rules of evidence. Evid.R. 23-38. Had defendant refused to testify as to certain facts which would directly, inferentially or indirectly
[245 N.J. Super. 318]
incriminate him, such claim of privilege would certainly stand even though this is a civil rather than a criminal matter. Evid.R. 24, Comment 2; State v. Kobrin Securities, Inc., 221 N.J.Super. 169, 534 A.2d 55 (App.Div. 1987). Since no such privilege was claimed and none other is apparently applicable herein, defendant's testimony shall be deemed fully competent.
Thus, it is well within the discretion of this court to permit the procedure where a party to a divorce action may be called by the opposition. Generally, a witness may not ordinarily be labeled as "hostile" merely because he is adverse when he has not been uncooperative nor testified in an unexpected manner. State v. Dwyer, 229 N.J.Super. 531, 552 A.2d 200(App.Div. 1989). However, divorce actions do not reach trial unless and, in fact, no agreement can be attained without the intervention of the court. The parties are as "adversarial" and as "hostile" as the non-legal definitions of those terms would import. The litigants clearly would not testify for the other on a purely voluntary basis. Under such circumstances, in a divorce action a court may declare the adverse party witness "hostile per se" and may grant the other party the "broad latitude" to examine the witness through the use of cross examination, and, as such, will not be bound by such testimony. [245 N.J. Super. 318]
Posted by Vercammen Law at 9:56 AM
Client to Prepare Interrogatory Questions in Civil...