20-2-3996 Nancy G. Slutsky v. Kenneth J. Slutsky, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Lihotz, P.J.A.D.) (53 pp.) Among the issues discussed in these appeals from a final judgment of divorce, are two of note. First, the court reversed the trial judge's conclusion fixing the value of defendant's interest in his law firm as including goodwill, because the trial judge's limited findings were unsupported and failed to properly analyze the methodology set forth in Dugan v. Dugan, 92 N.J. 423 (1983), and Stern v. Stern, 66 N.J. 340 (1975). The court highlighted the starting point of the analysis must be review of a shareholder's agreement fixing the interest of an equity partner to discern whether it properly captured goodwill. Second, the court reversed a fee award to the payee because it failed to account for the ordered financial obligations imposed upon the payor by the final judgment, and because following fee arbitration, the stipulated fees now due to counsel were less than the sum the payee was ordered to contribute. (Approved for Publication)

20-2-4006 State in the Interest of D.M., N.J. Super. App. Div. (Koblitz, J.A.D.) (19 pp.) In this juvenile delinquency case where a 14-year old was charged with aggravated sexual assault of an 11-year-old child, neither penetration nor coercion was found by the trial judge, who nonetheless convicted the juvenile of endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). The Legislature expressly stated its intent not to criminalize sexual contact between children less than four years apart in age absent either penetration or coercion. To the extent that the child endangerment statute might nonetheless be thought to include behavior of the nature found by the judge in this case, ambiguity in the construction of the statute must be resolved in favor of the juvenile both because the specific statute trumps the general statute and because ambiguous criminal statutes must be interpreted favorably to the accused. (Approved for Publication)

20-1-3995 Jaime Taormina Bisbing v. Glenn R. Bisbing III, N.J. Sup. Ct (Patterson, J.) (41 pp.) The Court recognizes a “special justification” to abandon the standard it established in Baures v. Lewis, 167 N.J. 91 (2001), for determining the outcome of contested relocation determinations pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-2. In place of the Baures standard, courts should conduct a bes-interests analysis to determine “cause” under N.J.S.A. 9:2-2 in all contested relocation disputes in which the parents share legal custody.