text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
filed: April 3, 1981.
JACOB KLINE COOPERAGE, INC., APPELLANT,v.GEORGE W. KISTLER, INC.
No. 2349 October Term, 1979, Appeal from an Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division-Trespass, of Lehigh County, No. 78-C-299.
Mark H. Scoblionko, Allentown, for appellant.
Donald Lipson, Allentown, for appellee.
Hester, Cavanaugh and Van der Voort, JJ. Cavanaugh, J., concurs in the result.
[ 286 Pa. Super. Page 86]
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. The procedural history and facts relevant to the issues on appeal are as follows:
Appellant is in the business of cleaning and repainting steel drums for resale to the public. There had been a series of fires originating in the automatic paint barrel booth, which appellant used to spray paint the drums. The drums were rotated and spray painted by this apparatus, and the fumes and excess spray were drawn by a fan up through a stack above the booth leading to the outside. Sometime prior to 1976, the appellant had an automatic dry chemical fire extinguishing system installed in order to control fires in the automatic paint barrel booths. This unit, which was not installed by appellee, failed to extinguish the numerous fires which occurred in the apparatus.
Appellant contacted appellee regarding its fire problem in April of 1976. Don Waggoner, an employee of appellee, inspected the existing system and recommended that an additional extinguishing tank and a number of extra discharge nozzles be installed inside the paint barrel booth stack.
Waggoner was unable to determine why the existing system had malfunctioned, but decided to add additional powder with the expectation that the increased system would control the fires.
On July 25, 1977, at approximately 7:00 p. m., appellant's building and various fixtures and machinery were damaged by a fire. Appellant contended that the fire originated in the paint barrel booth or the stack above it, then spread to the roof without being extinguished by the automatic dry chemical fire extinguishing system. Due to the fact that the fire allegedly originated in the area supposedly protected by the appellee's system, appellant was of the opinion that
[ 286 Pa. Super. Page 87]
appellee should be responsible for the damages sustained in the fire.
Appellant's theories of liability were:
(1) Strict liability, in that, (a) the extinguishing system failed to discharge its powder at the time of the fire and thus malfunctioned; (b) the system was inadequately designed since the fire was not extinguished even if appellant could not prove a specific design defect; (c) the system was inadequately designed because the appellee had chosen to use a type of powder rated for B-C types of fires when, in fact, appellee should have utilized a powder capable of extinguishing A-B-C types of fires;
(2) Negligence, in that the appellee inadequately performed its obligations under a service agreement existing between the parties;
(3) Breach of an implied warranty, either of merchantability or of fitness for a particular purpose, in that the appellee sold a system which either did not function properly or did not serve the specific purpose intended, i. e., extinguishing fires that occurred in the paint barrel booth or stack;
(4) Negligence, in that Waggoner never satisfied himself as to the reason the existing system had not extinguished the fires that had been occurring and was negligent on an ongoing basis when he failed to recommend a change in the system after a fire occurred in late 1976 which the increased system did not extinguish.
On January 23, 1979, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellee. This timely appeal followed the denial of post trial motions.
Appellant first contends the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Our Supreme Court has held that a new trial should be granted only where the verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. Burrell v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 438 Pa. 286, 265 A.2d 516
[ 286 Pa. Super. Page 88]
(1970). Appellant is not entitled to a new trial where the evidence is conflicting and the jury could have decided either way. Hilliard v. Anderson, 440 Pa. 625, 271 A.2d 227 (1970).
Appellant argued that appellee designed and installed a fire extinguishing system, and that the system failed to extinguish a fire originating in the protected area. Appellant presented the testimony of two firemen, Dale Werkeiser, an Assistant Chief of the Allentown Fire Department, and Herbert Miller, the Fire Inspector in charge of determining the origin and cause of the fire. Both witnesses testified on direct examination that the fire originated in the area of the stack above the paint barrel booth. However, cross-examination brought out the fact that these men had not conducted extensive investigations, and merely concluded from their observations at the scene that the fire must have started in the paint spray booths. Appellee presented contradictory evidence through the testimony of George W. Kistler who stated that the fire began outside the paint spray booth and supported his position with photographs and evidence introduced by the appellant. There is, therefore, more than ample evidence to support the verdict, and our sense of justice is not shocked by the verdict.
Appellant next contends the trial court erred in permitting George W. Kistler, Jr. to testify as to the origin and cause of the subject fire, alleging that the testimony was based upon facts not in evidence, and invaded the ultimate province of the jury. We have held that the trial court should consider whether the proffered opinion is helpful or even if helpful, whether it would confuse, mislead, or prejudice the jury. Lewis v. Mellor, 259 Pa. Super. 509, 393 A.2d 941 (1978). Kistler's testimony was not confusing or misleading, nor was it prejudicial. Appellant had introduced the testimony of two witnesses as to the origin of the fire. Appellants further objected to the testimony because Kistler never visited the premises, nor was he given a hypothetical question based upon facts made of record. We agree with the trial court that an expert may base his opinion on the testimony adduced by one of the parties made known to him
[ 286 Pa. Super. Page 89]
either by his having heard it or by having it read to him, and which, for the purpose of his opinion, he assumes to be true. Tobash v. Jones, 419 Pa. 205, 213 A.2d 588 (1965); Kelly v. Martino, 375 Pa. 244, 99 A.2d 901 (1953). Kistler testified he was in court and had heard the testimony of various witnesses concerning the premises before, during, and after the fire. He then rendered an opinion describing the specific evidence upon which he based his opinion, which was primarily the photographs of the premises immediately after the fire which had been introduced by appellant. We therefore, find no abuse of discretion in permitting this opinion evidence.
Appellant next contends the trial court erred in charging the jury that "opinion evidence is the lowest grade of testimony that the law permits in a case", rather than charging "that opinion evidence is generally considered of inferior or low grade." Kuchinic v. McCrory, 439 Pa. 314, 266 A.2d 723 (1970); Schneider v. Patterson, 209 Pa. Super. 265, 227 A.2d 925 (1967).
In reviewing alleged errors in the charge, we look to the charge in its entirety, against the background of the evidence in each case, in order to determine whether an error was committed and whether any prejudice resulted. Rosato v. Nationwide Insurance Company, 263 Pa. Super. 340, 397 A.2d 1238 (1979); McCay v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 447 Pa. 490, 291 A.2d 759 (1972); Albert v. Alter, 252 Pa. Super. 203, 381 A.2d 459 (1977). Viewing the alleged error in light of the foregoing standards, we fail to see any prejudice as a result of the charge, particularly since both parties relied upon opinion evidence in support of their positions.
Appellant next argues the trial court erred in charging the jury on contributory negligence. Our review of the record indicates the trial court properly charged the jury that contributory negligence does not bar recovery under the theory of strict liability. Later, the trial court charged the jury on a theory of trespass based on the negligent performance of the service maintenance contract by the appellee.
[ 286 Pa. Super. Page 90]
The court instructed the jury on contributory negligence as follows:
"Now, in this regard, however, as I indicated before, there was no question of negligence, or for that matter, any question of contributory negligence as to strict liability or the merchantability, warranty theories; but under this theory, there is a question of contributory negligence."
This charge of contributory negligence as to the service contract only was warranted by the evidence. Defense counsel adduced evidence as to the condition of the paint room, and the manner and importance of cleaning procedures in order to protect against fires. There was testimony to the effect that if soiled cleaning rags, soaked in solvent, were permitted to accumulate in the area, they could ignite as a result of spontaneous combustion, causing a fire outside the area protected by the extinguishing system. There was also expert testimony that the fire did originate outside the spray booth area. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that the manner in which the paint room was kept was a substantial contributory cause of the fire, and the charge on contributory negligence was proper. In any event, we fail to see any prejudice as a result of this portion of the charge. The jury failed to render a verdict in appellant's favor based on the theory of strict liability.
Appellant further argues that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on a general theory of negligence.
Appellant's position is that the trial court charged on a theory of negligence only with respect to alleged negligent performance of the service contract.
Our review of the record discloses that the trial court clearly covered these theories of negligence in points for charge numbers 15 and 16. This issue, therefore, merits no further discussion.
Appellant also contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury that it could not hold the defendant liable for
[ 286 Pa. Super. Page 91]
anything other than what it installed. Section 402-A of the Restatement of Torts Second entitled "Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer" provides:
(1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if
(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold.
(2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although
(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in preparation and sale of his product, and
(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller. (emphasis supplied).
The question then becomes what product the defendant actually sold to the plaintiff. The product sold here was the add-on system. We agree with the trial court that the fact appellee connected this add-on system to the existing system does not make it strictly liable for defects in the existing system, although appellee might be liable for the failure of the complete system on some other theory, such as negligence. The justification for the strict liability theory is succinctly outlined in the s to Section 402-A, Comment C:
"[the seller . . . by marketing his product for use and consumption, has undertaken and assumed a special responsibility toward any member of the consuming public who may be injured by it; that the public has the right to and does expect, in the case of products which it needs and for which it is forced to rely upon the seller, that reputable sellers will stand behind their goods; that public policy
[ 286 Pa. Super. Page 92]
demands that the burden of accidental injuries caused by products intended for consumption be placed upon those who market them, and be treated as a cost of production against which liability insurance can be obtained; and that the consumer of such products is entitled to the maximum of protection at the hands of someone; and the proper persons to afford it are those who market the products."
Accordingly, the purpose of Section 402-A would not be facilitated by imposing strict liability upon the appellee based upon the existing fire extinguishing system. We agree with the trial court that appellee is not an assembler of component parts, but rather its status is analogous to a repairman. In general, the courts in other states have refused to apply the concept of strict liability in tort to a repairman, or one in a similar position, but rather have forced the plaintiff to prove negligence. See, Hursh and Bailey, American Law of Products Liability, Second Edition, Sections 6:15, 6:17.
We, therefore, find no error in this portion of the court's charge nor is there any merit to the final argument of appellant as to alleged error in the charge.
Order affirmed.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
ERIC Number: ED182851
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1979-Aug
Pages: 179
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: 0
The Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education in North Dakota. "The FESEND Project." Technical Report Number One.
Hill, Richard; And Others
This report, one of several companion reports to the publication entitled, "A General Report," is concerned with analysis of a study of school finance in North Dakota. It contains position papers, data, and data treatment on which the general report was based, covering the following topics: property assessment, meshing state and federal finance laws (disparity and wealth neutrality), construction of school buildings and facilities, and severance taxes and their relation to educational finance. (Author)
Publication Type: Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: North Dakota Univ., Grand Forks. Bureau of Educational Research and Services.
Identifiers: North Dakota; Severance Tax
Note: For related documents, see EA 012 484-487; Not available in paper copy due to marginal legibility of tables

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
United States District Court, District of Columbia
November 25, 2014
Theodore E. Powell, Plaintiff,v.Mayor Vincent C. Gray et al., Defendants.
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, District Judge.
Plaintiff is a former teacher with the District of Columbia Public Schools who has submitted a complaint that once again challenges his termination on November 2010. For the following reasons, the Court will grant plaintiff's accompanying motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the case.
"As the plaintiff well knows, his exclusive remedy... comes by way of the District of Columbia's Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act" and judicial review in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Powell v. Gray, No. 13-1568, 2013 WL 5615129, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 2013) (citing Powell v. Am. Fed. of Teachers, 883 F.Supp.2d 183, 187 (D.D.C. 2012)) (other citations omitted). "[P]laintiff [] has no recourse in this Court." Id.
In addition, the instant complaint is procedurally barred to the extent that it is based on previously adjudicated facts. See Powell, 883 F.Supp.2d at 184-85. Under the principle of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits in one action "bars any further claim based on the same nucleus of facts'...." Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quoting Expert Elec., Inc. v. Levine, 554 F.2d 1227, 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). And res judicata bars the relitigation "of issues that were or could have been raised in [the prior] action." Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citing Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)); see I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (noting that res judicata "forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously"); accord Crowder v. Bierman, Geesing and Ward LLC, 713 F.Supp.2d 6, 10 (D.D.C. 2010).
Although res judicata is an affirmative defense that typically must be pled, courts "may raise the res judicata preclusion defense sua sponte, " Rosendahl v. Nixon, 360 Fed.Appx. 167, 168 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (citing Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412-13 (2000); Brown v. D.C., 514 F.3d 1279, 1285-86 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), and a "district court may apply res judicata upon taking judicial notice of [a] [party's] previous case, " Tinsley v. Equifax Credit Info. Serv's, Inc., No. 99-7031, 1999 WL 506720 (D.C. Cir. June 2, 1999) (per curiam) (citing Gullo v. Veterans Cooperative Housing Ass'n, 269 F.2d 517 (D.C. Cir. 1959) (per curiam)). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Alan Reed, Sr. doesn't have any movies playing in theaters.
If you feel like heading out, check out other movies in theaters.
The Tarnished Angels
A Woman's World
Viva Zapata!
Nob Hill
1001 Arabian Nights
Days of Glory
Actors and Sin
A Dream of Kings
Shinbone Alley
All Alan Reed, Sr. films
Movies.com, the ultimate source for everything movies, is your destination for new movie trailers, reviews, photos, times, tickets + more! Stay in the know with the latest movie news and cast interviews at Movies.com.
Copyright © 2016 FANDANGO MOVIES.


text:
Gone are the days of having just a website. Now, a website is one tool of the big digital picture. By developing a digital strategy that aligns with your organization's goals and brand reputation, I will help you determine the right tools to implement the strategy. With a background in both marketing and technology, I will effectively implement your digital strategy and partner with you to ensure its success.
You know that you need a digital strategy and your organization needs to adopt a digital mindset. After all, everyone in your organization is an ambassador of your organization's vision and mission, so where do you start? It seems very overwhelming. I can help you take your organization's strategic plan and incorporate digital into its DNA to increase customer engagement and brand advocacy. Through training and mentoring, your organization will adopt a digital mindset that will set you up for success.
You have taken the right steps to thinking digital, so how do you measure it? Are you going down the right track with your digital initiatives? Having the right digital analytics strategy in place and using the right tools will help identify trends and user behaviorial patterns. I will help you define the right strategy and show you how to interpret the data to make the best business decisions.
User experience and mobile accessibility should be top priority for your website. MODX is a secure open-source CMS built to give you complete freedom and control over code, content and design.
With MODX, your website will adhere to current Web standards, be optimized for search engines (SEO) and be section 508 Compliant for accessibility
Contact me to discuss if MODX is the right CMS solution for your organization
WordPress is a very robust and stable CMS. With a strong community and theme selection, you can select and brand one of many responsive design themes. It is a cost effienct way to have a modern website without emptying your pocket book.
Contact me to discuss my WordPress website packages that include SEO and Google Analytics
Social media is a platform with great power that enables organizations to engage their customers on a personal level. It is also a platform that needs a strategy and plan of action to be effective.
Contact me to your discuss your strategy. From strategy to implementation, I can help you use social media effectively to increase customer engagement and loyalty.
309 644 0773


text:
"Visit the canals of Leiden, if..." Historical Leiden Tip by carolineraat
Historical Leiden, Leiden: 101 reviews and 221 photos
Visit the canals of Leiden, if possible by boat.
The Rapenburg is the most beautiful canal in The Netherlands with lovely historical stately houses, reflected in the water.
On the Rapenburg you can also see the Academy Hall, dating from the 13th century and the botanical gardens, the oldest still existing in Europe.
Address: City centre
Website: http://www.muurgedichten.nl
1 - 0 of 0
More Reviews (30)
Restaurants (4)See All A great lunch cafe
General (5)See All Cronesteijn, world�s oldest reclamation
Hotels (1)In the city centre there are a...
Nightlife (1)One of my favorites is Annies...
Off The Beaten Path (14)See All Interior of the Waalse kerk
carolineraat's Related Pages
carolineraat Lives Here!
"This world is too big for one life!"
- Member Rank:
- 0 4 0 0 3
- 884 Reviews
- 2,726 Photos
- Add Friend
- Follow
- Send Message
Have you been to Leiden?Share Your Travels


text:
EasySky Enterprise Push Rod Joint
EasySky Enterprise
$1.99 Flat Rate Shipping!
|See Price In Cart
This item is eligible for $1.99 flat rate shipping Learn More
This item earns up to 1 VIP Reward Points Learn More
This is a replacement EasySky Push Rod Joint. This is compatible with the EasySky Cessna, Piper Cub, Yak-12 and Wilga airplanes.
This product was added to our catalog on April 23, 2015.


text:
Call Now: 1-800-284-2288
View Larger Image (in new window)
Digital Watchdog : DWC-MC421D
By: Digital Watchdog
Complete Video Surveillance Solutions
Contact us for lowest price (800) 284-2288, (858) 565-1101, email@example.com, or fax (858) 300-4193
ONVIF Compliant, 2.1 Megapixels (1080P, 30fps), Compatible with C and CS Mount Lens
The DWC-MC421D MEGAPIX camera is a triple codec network camera that provides 1080P megapixel resolution at 30 frames per second. The camera's advanced technologies like Electronic Day and Night, 3D-DNR, and WDR will deliver the best images in any type of environment. And Power over Ethernet will simplify installation by connecting both power and network through a single cable.
3D DNR (Digital Noise Reduction)
BLC - Backlight Compensation
D/N - Day/ Night: Electronic
Image Sensor: 1/2.8" CMOS Sensor (7% Larger than 1/3" CMOS Sensor)
Lens: C/CS Mount Lens Compatible
OnVIF Conformant
PoE (Power over Ethernet): Class 2 PoE Switch & 12VDC
Programmable Privacy Zones: 30 Programmable Zones
Resolution: Highest Resolution 2.1 Megapixels (1920x1080)
SD Card Backup
Two-Way Audio
WDR- Wide Dynamic Range
Web Server Built-in
Zoom: 8x Digital Zoom
Call Now: 1-800-284-2288
Email Us: sales@avsupply


text:
Bethune Zumba
Four Camden Police Department (CPD) officers received honors recently for their work in the field and with the community. They include two 2013 Officers of the Year, one named by the CPD itself, the other by the American Legion; the 2013 recipient of the CPD's Wilson Clyburn award; and recognition of another officer for being among the nominees for the S.C. Law Enforcement Network's (SCLEN) 2013 Officer of the Year award.
Politics in South Carolina has always had its seamy side, but the current dust-up between Bobby Harrell, speaker of the state House of Representatives, and Attorney General Alan Wilson is especially intriguing. Harrell, a Charleston Republican, is being investigated for corruption, including possible misuse of campaign funds and possible misuse of his legislative position, charges that grew out of a grand jury proceeding. Law enforcement sources say Harrell's attorneys have been secretly trying to get a state judge to remove Wilson as the chief prosecutor.
In a season-opening battle between a pair of 2013 state tennis qualifiers, the 4A entry eased past the squad which made its first appearance in the post-season.
If he had his druthers, Camden High tennis coach Roger Smoak would rather ease into the start of the season before heading into conference action.
Getting two goals in the opening 50 minutes of play proved to be more than enough for the Lugoff-Elgin boys soccer team whichtook a 3-1 win over host Camden on Wednesday night.
One out and one strike away from getting out of the sixth inning with a 4-1 lead over two-time defending AAA state champion A.C. Flora, Camden saw its lead evaporate with one swing of the bat from Donald Gillepsie.
Doing all its damage in the opening two frames, Camden Military Academy jumped to a 9-2 lead over visiting North Central and would hang on for a 9-7 win over the Knights on Wednesday afternoon.
With the gusting wind virtually turning the tennis ball into a badminton shuttlecock, Camden overcame the conditions and some unsettling play in the second set to come away with a 6-0 home court win over 4A Sumter on Wednesday.
A few minutes before Tuesday's match with rival Camden, Lugoff-Elgin golf coach Mike Robinson went up to one of his players and gave him a pep talk as to what he expected out of him that day.
The Family Resource Center has launched a campaign to engage men and boys in ending sexual violence and child abuse. The 100 Men Strong Campaign is asking 100 men to stand strong and declare that violence against women and children must end. Men who are interested in joining our movement can do the following:
Due to winter weather conditions, the previously scheduled program by Josh Castleberry at the Kershaw County Library Camden branch has been rescheduled. It will be Tuesday from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. Castleberry will be discussing the natural history of native animals.
A memorial service celebrating the life of Paul Elmer Kramer, 86, of Lugoff, will be held on Saturday, March 15, 2014 at 1:00 PM at St. Timothy's Lutheran Church in Camden. Rev. Angela Jennings will officiate. Memorials may be made in Paul's memory to St. Timothy's Lutheran Church, 1301 Mill Street, Camden, SC 29020 or Christ Lutheran Church, PO Box 4, Mahanoy City, PA 17948.
A funeral service to celebrate the life of Bobby Ennis, 76, of Camden, SC, will be held at 1:00 PM, Saturday, March 15, 2014 at Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Camden. Rev. Ernest Rabon will officiate. Burial will follow in the church cemetery. The family will receive friends from 6:00-8:00 PM, Friday, March 14, 2014 at Kornegay Funeral Home, Camden Chapel.
Lorine Stogsdill is celebrating her 101st birthday on November 30. She will be celebrating with family and friends. She has four children and was an ...
The city of Camden will kick off the holiday season with the annual Tree Lighting Ceremony in front of Camden City Hall. The public is ...
A graveside service to honor the life of Charles David Ziemke, 84, of Camden, SC, will be held at 11:00 AM, Tuesday, November 29 ...
A graveside service to honor the life of David Lynn Watkins, 67, of Camden, SC, will be held at 2:00 PM, Wednesday, November 30 ...
CAMDEN – Funeral services for Ruth Roach Vandiver, 89, will be held Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. at Powers Funeral Home, with burial to follow ...
LUGOFF – Services for Dora Ann Rabon, 76, will be private.
Ashely Guerry McLaurin, 44, of Potsdam, NY, graveside services at 1:00 PM, Tuesday, November 29, 2016 in Scotch Cemetery. Kornegay Funeral Home, Camden Chapel ...
Jason Bryant Hartzell, 37, of Elgin, an IT Specialist and United States Army Veteran, passed away Wednesday, November 23, 2016. Arrangements by James A. McAlister ...
Eleanor Edith (Guzzi) DelPo died Saturday from complications due to Alzheimer's Disease. She was 85. Eleanor was born in Newton, MA, on January 21 ...
North Central running back/defensive back Cedrick Cunningham has been named as one of five finalists for South Carolina's Mr. Football.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Chronicle Independent All rights reserved. Privacy policy and Terms of service


text:
Indiranagar, Bangalore, India- 560038.
Building No - 191, Ist Floor CMH Road
9th Cross Ist Stage, Opposite Adyar Anand Bhavan Indira Nagar, Bangalore
Indiranagar, Bangalore, India- 560038. .
Vineeth Harikumar
attended in Feb,2016
posted on 04 Apr, 2016
"Jamboree is the best institution when it comes to cracking GRE, in my opinion. I have attended Jamboree's GRE classes and their methodology has helped me in getting good scores in GRE. Mr. Manoj and Ms.Mangalam simplified the Verbal questions for me with various tips and tricks. Mr. Ravi made the Quant section very easy with his crystal clear explanation of various mathematical concepts and multiple approaches of problem solving varying from shortcuts to methods based concretely on fundamentals.Staff in Jamboree are also supportive and helpful. With its comprehensive materials, online mock tests and an array of facilities ranging from library to labs there is no doubt that this is the right place for preparing for your GRE."
Debabrata Maiti
attended in Jan,2016
posted on 04 Apr, 2016
"I attended IELTS weekend classes at Indranagar center, it was a nice learning experience. The Faculty, Adrita, is really good and she provides help at the need hours. Her training approach is very straightforward and at the very first class, she gives a clear structure about the exam which helps a lot in exam hall. Also the study material is quite helpful. I would highly recommend this center to score a decent grade in IELTS."


text:
Benefits of Registration
Welcome back! Your Celebrations Passport membership is about to expire. Don't let you Free Shipping/No Service Charge benefits expire.
Renewal Passport Membership has been added to cart.
* One year membership starts immediately with today's purchase, membership fee refundable within 30 days. Automatic one year renewal for $29.99 as an added convenience, cancellable at any time. Orders must be placed two or more business days ahead of delivery date. Offer subject to delivery rules. Florist Fulfilled items are generally available for delivery 7 days a week. Direct Ship products can only be sent within the continental United States. Click here for complete Terms and Conditions.
Welcome back! Your Celebrations Passport membership has expired. Don't lose your Free Shipping/No Service Charge benefits across our family of brands.
Surprise someone with six perfect strawberries covered in rich Belgian chocolate. Each exquisite, substantial berry is hand-dipped in pure white, dark, or milk chocolate, then hand-decorated with unique seasonal designs by artisans specializing in chocolate. This classic gift is as beautiful as it is delicious, and it's a true gourmet sensation.
Please note: This item ships overnight for $12.99 using cold packs to ensure it arrives in perfect condition. Express orders placed at the end of the week will ship on Monday of the following week. Not eligible for Passport®, shipping discounts or promotions.
Personalize this item
Price: $
Edit Personalization
Remove Personalization
Earn 0 Rewards Points with this purchase
Not a Celebrations Rewardssm Member? Join at Checkout.


text:
Explore Peculiar Crimes, Christopher Fowler and more!
New 4/25/13 | Bryant & May on the Loose (Peculiar Crimes Unit) by Christopher Fowler
THE MEMORY OF BLOOD = CHRISTOPHER FOWLER | The Memory of Blood, by Christopher Fowler
Full Dark House (Peculiar Crimes Unit Series #1)
New LP, 4/25/13 | The Tenderness of Wolves by Stef Penney
White Corridor: 1 (Bryant & May Mysteries) by Christopher Fowler, love this series
New 10/4/13. Just a Cowboy and His Baby by Carolyn Brown
Amazon.com: Ten Second Staircase (Bryant & May Mystery) eBook: Christopher Fowler: Kindle Store
New 10/25/13. 'The Rosie Project,' by Graeme Simsion
New 4/19/13 | Eleven Little Piggies (A Jake Hines Mystery) by Elizabeth Gunn
New 4/12/13. Wishing on Willows by Katie Ganshert


text:
Shopping: Spheres
by Julia
May 19, 2010 at 10:05 am
May 19, 2010 at 10:05 am
In the season of Spring / Summer 2010 start adopting a feminine and vintage look with spheres! Invests in a trend that designers manage to reinvent itself each season. What we propose this year? Find out now!Read More
Most Read Rumors
- 1Kate Middleton reveals Prince George loves dinosau...During a visit to London's Natural History Museum, Duchess Kate confided about her children's tastes and personalitiRead More


text:
Alienware Notebooks - Reviews
Your Filters
Compare products
Microsoft Surface Book i7 review
- 8 users want this
- Full Review
Review: Parallels Desktop 12 - How to use Windows on a Mac
Review: Asus ZenBook 3
Clamcase for iPad Pro 9.7-inch
Review: MSI GS63VR Stealth Pro 4K laptop: high-end, portable gaming
- 4 users want this
- Full Review
MSI GS70 laptop review
- 43 users want this
- Full Review
Review: MSI GT73VR Titan laptop
- 12 users want this
- Full Review
Review: Asus ROG G752 OC Edition - Faster than many desktop gaming PCs
- 3 users want this
- Full Review
Incase City Backpack
Razer Blade (2016) review: Incremental upgrades make it a good laptop for the moment
- 7 users want this
- Full Review
Portable power: Venom Blackbook 13 Zero review
- 36 users want this
- Full Review
Witness a 241% Australian price hike: Dell Latitude 7370 review
This is what an $850 laptop bag looks like: Slaint Arroe Briefcase 15 review
Toshiba Z20t review: 14 hours of battery life highlights this business-class hybrid
Review: HP Spectre 13.3
- 6 users want this
- Full Review
Review: Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet
Review: HP EliteBook Folio G1 offers lightweight business computing
- 5 users want this
- Full Review
Deep-dive review: For the iPad Pro, smaller is big
Raspberry Pi 3 review: The revolutionary $41 mini-PC cures its biggest headaches
- 9 users want this
- Full Review
Samsung Notebook 9 Pro review: This feature-packed 15-inch laptop makes a few compromises
- 3 users want this
- Full Review
Cool Tech
Crucial Ballistix Elite 32GB Kit (4 x 8GB) DDR4-3000 UDIMM
360Fly 4K Camera
Garmin fenix Chronos
GS63VR Stealth Pro
Gadgets & Things
Arlo Smart Home Security Cameras
Lexar® Professional 1000x microSDHC™/microSDXC™ UHS-II cards
Google Daydream View
Crucial® MX300 Solid State Drive
Ehang 184
Family Friendly
Parrot Mambo Drone
Orbi WiFi System
Lexar® JumpDrive® S57 USB 3.0 flash drive
Google Pixel XL
Stocking Stuffer
Clamcase for iPad Pro 9.7-inch
Plox Star Wars Death Star Levitating Bluetooth Speaker
Lexar® JumpDrive® C20i flash drive
3SIXT HD Sports Action Camera
Brother PocketJet Printer
Christmas Gift GuideClick for more ›
Most Popular Reviews
- 1 Finally! LG OLED TV 2016 range review
- 2 Google Daydream View VR full, in-depth review
- 3 Google Pixel XL full, in-depth smartphone review: Phones just got smarter
- 4 Apple iPhone 7 Plus review: including Portrait Mode
- 5 MSI GS70 laptop review
Join the PC World newsletter!
Latest News Articles
- SSD adoption in laptops exceeds expectations
- Apple will refund you for your iMac hinge repair costs
- MacBook Pro teardown reveals pointless speaker grilles and hard-to-replace Touch Bar
- Apple leads tablet sales, but the iPad Pro is not its best seller
- Latest MacBook Pro price reset resembles shift to Retina in 2012
Business Centre
The latest business news, reviews, features and whitepapers
Online Shop
Visit our shop for the best deals on hot products
Watch our video news and reviews from around the world
Comprehensive buying guides, features, and step-by-step articles
GGG Evaluation Team
Kathy Cassidy
First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.
Anthony Grifoni
For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.
Steph Mundell
The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.
Andrew Mitsi
The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.
Simon Harriott
My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.
Featured Content
- The top 10 best and worst tech gadgets and products of 2016
- TV of the year award 2016
- Best phone of the year 2016
- What's the difference between an Intel Core i3, i5 and i7?
- Laser vs. inkjet printers: which is better?
Latest Jobs
- CCHadoop DeveloperVIC
- FTHealth Software Support Consultant - Permanent - North RydeNSW
- CCSenior Systems EngineerVIC
- CCSenior Platform DeveloperNSW
- CCSenior Integration DeveloperNSW
- CCHadoop DeveloperQLD
- FTLevel 2 Service Desk AnalystQLD
- CCIngres DeveloperSA
- TPBI DeveloperSA
- FTSenior Consultant/ArchitectNSW
- CCPerformance Test AnalystQLD
- TPSAP ABAP ProgrammerQLD
- CCUX DesignerNSW
- CCMainframe Developer (with ASP.NET)NSW
- TPFrontend DeveloperNSW
- CCWorkforce Planning ManagerNSW
- FTHadoop DeveloperVIC
- FTSenior Financial Planner - BallaratVIC
- FTLevel 1/2 Service Desk AnalystQLD
- CCService Desk Quality Assurance SpecialistNSW
- CCProject Manager- Office 365 and Core Azure servicesNSW
- FTSenior Architect, Financial MarketsNSW
- FTSecurity Delivery Manager l Security, Governance, Delivery & OperationNSW
- CCInfrastructure Team LeadNSW
- FTSenior C++ EngineerACT


text:
A Poem is a Naked Person
Opens Friday, August 7 – Tickets HERE
Facebook Event – Join the party!
An ineffable mix of unbridled joy and vérité realism, A POEM IS A NAKED PERSON lets us into the world of Russell and his friends and fellow artists in and around his recording studio in northeast Oklahoma, capturing intimate, off-the-cuff moments and combining them with mesmerizing scenes of Russell and his band performing live. This singular film about an artist and his community never got an official theatrical release and has attained legendary status; now after more than forty years it can finally be seen and heard in all its rough beauty.
Sponsored by


text:
Grande Villas Resort by Diamond Resorts
Select your stay dates to check availability at Grande Villas Resort by Diamond Resorts
Grande Villas Resort by Diamond Resorts
About the Hotel
Property Location
With a stay at Grande Villas Resort by Diamond Resorts in Orlando (Disney Springs™ area - Lake Buena Vista), you'll be close to Orlando Premium Outlets Vineland Ave and SeaWorld® Orlando. This family-friendly hotel is within close proximity of Mary Queen of the Universe Shrine and Little Lake Bryan.
Make yourself at home in one of the 408 air-conditioned rooms featuring kitchenettes with refrigerators and stovetops. Rooms have private balconies or patios. Cable programming and iPod docking stations are provided for your entertainment, while complimentary wireless Internet access keeps you connected. Conveniences include safes and separate sitting areas, and housekeeping is provided on a limited basis.
Dip into one of the 2 outdoor swimming pools or enjoy other recreational amenities including an outdoor tennis court and a fitness center. Additional amenities at this hotel include concierge services, supervised childcare/activities, and an arcade/game room.
Business, Other Amenities
Featured amenities include a computer station, a 24-hour front desk, and multilingual staff.
Hotel Facilities
- Tennis on site
- Supervised childcare/activities (surcharge)
- Gift shops or newsstand
- Number of floors - 5
- Outdoor tennis court
- Multilingual staff
- Number of outdoor pools - 2
- 24-hour front desk
- Computer station
- Fitness facilities
- Concierge services
- Safe-deposit box at front desk
- Smoke-free property
- Luggage storage
- Supervised childcare/activities
- Picnic area
- Arcade/game room
- Tours/ticket assistance
- Laundry facilities
- Spa tub
- Children's pool
- Elevator/lift
- Barbecue grill(s)
- ATM/banking
- Total number of rooms - 408
Room Facilities
- Hair dryer
- Coffee/tea maker
- DVD player
- Balcony or patio
- Shower/tub combination
- Limited housekeeping
- In-room safe
- Stovetop
- Microwave
- Refrigerator
- Iron/ironing board
- Access via exterior corridors
- Free WiFi
- Television
- In-room climate control (air conditioning)
- Cable TV service
- Kitchenette
- Separate sitting area
- Air conditioning
- Free cribs/infant beds
- Sofa bed
- Ceiling fan
- Private bathroom
- Cookware, dishware, and utensils
- Free toiletries
- iPod docking station
Hotel Policy
Mandatory Fees and Taxes
You'll be asked to pay the following charges at the property:
- Deposit: USD 100 per stay
- Resort fee: USD 10.00 per accommodation, per night
- Pool access
- Spa tub access
- Fitness center access
- Sporting facilities or equipment
- Business center/computer access
- Internet access
- In-room safe
- Laundry facilities
- Self parking
- Parking
We have included all charges provided to us by the property. However, charges can vary, for example, based on length of stay or the room you book.Show all hotel policy Show less hotel policy


text:
Check in from 2:00 PM / Check out prior to 12:00 AM
Sweet Budapest Apartments: Find photos, reviews, information, amenities and compare prices for 4 stars hotels in Budapest, Hungary.
Conveniently positioned, Sweet Budapest Apartments offers easy access to Budapest's best sightseeing areas. It features comfortable apartments with an en suite bathroom and a kitchenette.
Hotel description
This 4-star property provides a limousine service, luggage storage and an airport shuttle. A Wi-Fi connection is also available.
All the apartments at Sweet Budapest Apartments provide tea and coffee making facilities, a refrigerator and an in-room dining area. They come with wireless internet access, a ceiling fan and a sofa bed.
In-house dining options include a restaurant, which is a convenient spot to enjoy a meal. Guests are also able to try one of the various bars and restaurants in the vicinity.
Budapest's attractions, including the Chain Bridge, the Szecsenyi Chain Bridge and the Dohany Street Synagogue, are easily accessible on foot from Sweet Budapest Apartments. Vaci Utca and the Hungarian State Opera House are a short stroll away.
Hotel features
Restaurant, Pet Friendly, Non-Smoking Rooms, Refrigerator, Cable / Satellite TV, Coffee / Tea Maker, Microwave, Hair Dryer, TV, En suite, Private Bathroom
Elevator / Lift, Multilingual Staff, Photocopier, Luggage Storage
Internet Connection (wireless)
Parking, Airport shuttle
Private Toilet
Availability and Prices
Booking Site
Room Type
Per room
Per night
Per night
Users who viewed Sweet Budapest Apartments also viewed these 4 stars Budapest hotels:
Apartment Premium
Old Post str 11, 05. City Center - Belváros, Budapest
Old Post str 11, 05. City Center - Belváros, Budapest
Apartment Moszkva Home
Moszkva sqr 3, 12., Budapest
Moszkva sqr 3, 12., Budapest
Alfa Hotel Fiesta
Kiraly Utca 205, Budapest
Kiraly Utca 205, Budapest
Search hotels
based on
146 reviews
Nearest hotels
- Superb Luxury Apartment
0 miles
- Budapest Places Lizzy Apartment
0 miles
- Elizabeth Garden Apartment
0 miles


text:
Phone: (289) 320-8250
1238 Dominion Road
Fort Erie, Ontario, L2A 1H7
To view our complete product offer in your area, we suggest you select this RONA.
At anytime you can select another RONA store or a RONA L'Entrepôt/ Home & Garden. The product selection listed will match the selected store.
Circular Saw Blade - 50-tooth - 8" - Steel/CarbideThis extra fine finishing blade cuts smoothly through melamine, laminates and plastics. The special triple chip grind design of the teeth results in chip-free cutting and long life of cutting edges. This blade is ideal for use in both portable and stationary tools.


text: Scientists seeking to combat antibiotic resistance are testing silver and other substances that make bacteria more vulnerable to attack, using genetic sequencing to find effective drugs and trying to neutralize harmful bacteria instead of killing them outright. Some 23,000 people in the U.S. die each year from drug-resistant bacterial infections, the CDC says. Advances in genomic sequencing have allowed scientists to find vulnerable targets faster than ever, scientists say.


text:
Your guide to Youtube tags and how to use them – 2015 I'm pretty sure if you're looking at this, your probably wondering a lot of things. What even ARE Youtube tags? When do I use them? How do I use them? Well, I'm here to give you a quick rundown on Youtube Tags, so that you can have an understanding of them by the time you finish this. Youtube tags are certain keywords that…Read More
QQTube review
Fair review of QQTube QQTube is an online company which provides YouTube services. Basically, QQTube sells YouTube views. What does YouTube views mean? Everytime you upload a video to your YouTube account, you can see how many views your video has. The bigger view number, the more famous your video is. QQTube helps you to get the high view number. You can easily buy YouTube views from QQTube and then wait untill the magic works….Read More
YouTube CPM and RPM Explained
Explaining The Difference Between YouTube CPM And YouTube RPM If you are planning to monetize videos that you have uploaded on YouTube, it's very important that you learn of the difference between CPM and RPM. A lot of YouTube users still don't know what separates the two terms from each other. This often causes a lot of confusion with regards to the amount of earnings they make from their content. In this simple guide, we…Read More
Zoonix MCN Partnership
Zoonix MCN Partnership Zoonix MCN is a new Canada based MCN with unique approach to its partners. This June, Thomas Allen created Zoonix, a YouTube multi-channel network that works with a number of creators on multiple platforms, providing them with the tools they need to grow their brand and audience. They offer unique tools to make sure their subscribers become successful, and its staff is located in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States,…Read More
TubeBuddy Review TubeBuddy is one of the best YouTube tools that will enhance your youtube experience. TubeBuddy – a new step in the automation of operations on the site YouTube.com. The development YTHelper attended by real professionals – production traffic from YouTube, so you can only enjoy the convenience of the interface, and a huge selection of features, which has YTHelper This software consists of a processor to automate actions in YouTube.com Tube Buddy…Read More
Bent Pixels Partnership
Bent Pixels Partnership Bent Pixels YouTube Partnership – Is It Worth It? In order to maximize their reach and influence, a lot of video creators these days are partnering with multi-channel networks or MCNs. If you are not that familiar with multi-channel networks, these are online entities that affiliate themselves with more than one YouTube channels and creators. Suffice it to say that Bent Pixels is one of them. Since its inception in 2009, Bent…Read More
VSP Group Partnership
WSP is also called affiliate, VSP Group by the people "GSP Group", and it is still called TopBeatyBlog. Connect to WSP affiliate In this article, we will focus on the following: VSP Partnership (VSP Group) – overview Official requirements for connection to the WSP affiliate (VSP Group) Informal requirements for connecting the channel to the GSP (as of this writing) What WSP paying affiliate (VSP Group) What kind of YouTube channels are connected to the…Read More
Quizgroup Partnership
Quiz Group Partnership overview One of the oldest affiliate programs on YouTube, working since 2010, the GSP has airs and was not in sight. Go to site Quiz Group affiliate. All of the media grid quiz Quiz Group affiliate In this article you will learn the following: Overview of the Quiz Group affiliate Quiz Group – conditions for connecting channel What pays Quiz Group affiliate How to connect to the channel Quiz Group Overview of…Read More
Freedom Partnership
In this article we will review one of the biggest MCNs out there. Many of you are interested whether it is a good or bad network to join, what are the requirements and how much does it pay Freedom Network in General Freedom is a managed YouTube partner network. It offers a number of services to help you to grow your own YouTube channel and expand your revenue. These services included a variety of copyright…Read More
RPM Partnership
RPM Network Partnership RPM Partnership is a YouTube network designed to help aspiring content creators grow their audience and boost their YouTube channels. The company, whose name stands for "Record. Promote. Monetize.," is one of many YouTube networks that work to support the development of online content creators through premium advertisement and other audience boosting features and support. Because it is part of Maker Studios, RPM is able to offer more resources and services for…Read More


text:
The stock of L Brands Inc (NYSE:LB) is a huge mover today! About 724,658 shares traded hands. L Brands Inc (NYSE:LB) has declined 7.81% since April 25, 2016 and is downtrending. It has underperformed by 13.82% the S&P500.
The move comes after 9 months positive chart setup for the $20.64B company. It was reported on Nov, 28 by Barchart.com. We have $74.62 PT which if reached, will make NYSE:LB worth $619.20M more.
Analysts await L Brands Inc (NYSE:LB) to report earnings on February, 22. They expect $1.97 EPS, down 8.37% or $0.18 from last year's $2.15 per share. LB's profit will be $561.38M for 9.20 P/E if the $1.97 EPS becomes a reality. After $0.42 actual EPS reported by L Brands Inc for the previous quarter, Wall Street now forecasts 369.05% EPS growth.
L Brands Inc (NYSE:LB) Ratings Coverage
Out of 24 analysts covering L Brands (NYSE:LB), 9 rate it a "Buy", 2 "Sell", while 13 "Hold". This means 38% are positive. L Brands has been the topic of 84 analyst reports since August 7, 2015 according to StockzIntelligence Inc. The rating was maintained by Wedbush with "Neutral" on Friday, August 19. The firm has "Hold" rating given on Friday, August 21 by Brean Capital. On Friday, August 19 the stock rating was maintained by Telsey Advisory Group with "Outperform". The rating was initiated by Wolfe Research on Tuesday, August 18 with "Peer Perform". On Tuesday, November 1 the stock rating was downgraded by Mizuho to "Neutral". The stock has "Neutral" rating given by Citigroup on Friday, April 8. The firm has "Buy" rating given on Wednesday, November 4 by Topeka Capital Markets. The stock of L Brands Inc (NYSE:LB) has "Neutral" rating given on Friday, May 20 by Wedbush. The firm has "Sector Perform" rating given on Wednesday, November 2 by RBC Capital Markets. The firm has "Neutral" rating given on Friday, August 19 by Citigroup.
According to Zacks Investment Research, "L Brands, Inc. operates as a retailer of women's intimate and other apparel, beauty and personal care products and accessories primarily in the United States. Its brand includes Victoria's Secret, Victoria's Secret Pink, Bath & Body Works, La Senza and Henri Bendel. The company sells its product through franchise, license, wholesale partners, websites, catalogue, and other channels. L Brands Inc., formerly known as Limited Brands Inc., is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio."
Insitutional Activity: The institutional sentiment increased to 0.96 in Q2 2016. Its up 0.06, from 0.9 in 2016Q1. The ratio increased, as 98 funds sold all L Brands Inc shares owned while 144 reduced positions. 50 funds bought stakes while 168 increased positions. They now own 214.85 million shares or 2.03% less from 219.30 million shares in 2016Q1.
Disciplined Growth Investors Mn last reported 1.47M shares in the company. Mirae Asset Global Co Limited has 0.04% invested in the company for 20,647 shares. Blackrock, a United Kingdom-based fund reported 2.24M shares. Azimuth Mngmt Ltd Company has 3,000 shares for 0.02% of their US portfolio. Manufacturers Life Insurance The holds 0.03% of its portfolio in L Brands Inc (NYSE:LB) for 255,990 shares. The California-based Blackrock Fund has invested 0.07% in L Brands Inc (NYSE:LB). Wesbanco Bank & Trust last reported 3,094 shares in the company. Credit Agricole S A accumulated 0.09% or 352,342 shares. Nikko Asset Americas, a New York-based fund reported 4,200 shares. Jennison Assocs Ltd Co has 0.05% invested in the company for 632,270 shares. Moreover, Fred Alger Mngmt has 0% invested in L Brands Inc (NYSE:LB) for 11,584 shares. Retirement Of Alabama holds 0.05% or 128,983 shares in its portfolio. Whittier Co last reported 1,365 shares in the company. The United Kingdom-based Legal General Grp Inc Public Limited has invested 0.08% in L Brands Inc (NYSE:LB). Jefferies Grp Inc Limited Liability Corporation has 39,511 shares for 0.01% of their US portfolio.
More important recent L Brands Inc (NYSE:LB) news were published by: Wsj.com which released: "L Brands CEO Says Victoria's Secret Was Getting Stale" on November 01, 2016, also Forbes.com published article titled: "Ex-Dividend Reminder: L Brands, National CineMedia and Avista", Marketwatch.com published: "Victoria's Secret L Brands gives downbeat forecast" on November 16, 2016. More interesting news about L Brands Inc (NYSE:LB) was released by: Forbes.com and their article: "Victoria's Secret Gives Little Lift To L Brands" with publication date: November 03, 2016.
LB Company Profile
L Brands, Inc., incorporated on March 16, 1982, operates specialty retail business. The Firm is focused on women's intimate and other apparel, personal care and beauty categories. The Firm sells its merchandise through Company-owned specialty retail stores in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, which are primarily mall-based; through Websites, and through international franchise, license and wholesale partners (collectively partners). The Firm operates through three divisions: Victoria's Secret, Bath & Body Works, and Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works International. The Firm operates the retail brands, which include Victoria's Secret, PINK, Bath & Body Works, La Senza and Henri Bendel. La Senza is a specialty retailer of women's intimate apparel. The Firm sells its La Senza products at over 140 La Senza stores in Canada and online at www.LaSenza.com. Additionally, La Senza has approximately 220 stores in over 30 other countries operating under franchise, license and wholesale arrangements. Bath & Body Works is a specialty retailer of personal care, soaps, sanitizers and home fragrance products. Henri Bendel is an operator of approximately 30 specialty stores, which sells handbags, jewelry and other accessory products. Mast Global is a merchandise sourcing and production function serving the Company and its international partners.
Receive News & Ratings Via Email - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings with our FREE daily email newsletter.


text:
Arlene Harris, Co-Chair of the Trusts & Estates practice group, was named to Worth magazine's list of the nation's "100 Top Attorneys" appearing in the December 2007 issue, currently on newsstands. In determining their selections, Worth's editors looked most carefully at attorneys focusing on trust and estates, philanthropy, elder care, matrimonial and other private practice areas. Specifically, they looked for professionals who combined exceptional legal experience with outstanding interpersonal skills and a commitment to their clients' needs.
Also of Interest
- Get a Hold of Your QSBS Holding Period December 2, 2016 • Articles
- Kaye Scholer Advises Veracen on Merger of Equals with Turner Investments August 31, 2016 • Client Successes
- Kaye Scholer Represents NexPhase Capital in Acquisition of Zing Zang July 7, 2016 • Client Successes
- Lewin Featured in Reuters Practical Law on the UK's 2016 Budget March 22, 2016 • Media Mentions
- AFIRENews Publishes "Changes under the PATH Act to the FIRPTA and REIT Rules" March 4, 2016 • Articles
- Edward Vergara Joins Kaye Scholer's Growing Tax & Private Clients Department February 22, 2016 • Firm News
- Hirsberg Named to Citywealth Magazine 2015 Leaders List August 18, 2015 • Recognitions
- There's A Catch: The Tax On Catching A-Rod's Home-Run Ball August 14, 2015 • Articles
- London Tax Partner Daniel Lewin Quoted in Thomson Reuters' Practical Law July 14, 2015 • Media Mentions


text:
Online Class
Adventures in Double-Knitting
with Alasdair Post-Quinn
What are you most proud of? I originally designed this as a headband that would fit, but then kept going and made a hat. Because it is all double, it is incredible warm (I wore it today in -30C temps and was toasty warm). What advice would you give someone starting this project? I cast on 84 pairs for this hat instead of the 111 for the Duvino Headband, and it was a much better size (and I have a big head). It is easy to design for double knitting, you just need graph paper. Any stranded pattern would work too and no floats. A double layer is wonderful too. I think I am hooked on double knitting. The class was wonderful!
No completed Q&As yet.


text:
Faye Reagan Fucked Hard At School
Faye Reagan was a brand new student at a boarding school. Her new roomates were Teagan Summers, Lily Carter, and Lizz Tayler. The girls wanted to initiate Faye into their group of friends by getting her to fuck one of their guys as they watched. They tore off her shirt to reveal her luscious tits and then ripped off her panties to see her sweet pussy. They invited a dude over to give Faye the initiation. She was getting her pussy pounded before long and the other girls soon joined in on the action. The principal caught the teens so they decided to bend over and let him give them their punishment!!
See The Free Video Of Faye Reagan Only At Pure 18
Click Here To Watch The Free Video Of Faye Reagan At Pure 18
|Porn Pics Pass
18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
In compliance with United States Code, Title 18, Section 2257, all models, actors, actresses and other persons who appear in any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained on this page were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions.


text:
Smile Makeovers with Dental Laser with Dental Care Dubai
Be the first to suggest a tag
At Cocoona Dental Services, Dentistry is about YOU not only your teeth. We believe in TOTAL CARE, hence we understand your wants & provide the needs to solve problems.
see details here : http://dentalcaredubai.com
uploaded 1 year ago by dentalcaredubai in Rumble, 4 views


text:
E-Learning Course "Doing Business in Mexico"
Modules of the Course: Doing Business in Mexico.
The main objective of the course "International Trade and Business in Mexico" is to offer a global vision of Mexico and the business opportunities in the Mexican market in order:
Request for information of the course Business in Mexico
Sample of the course - Business in Mexico.
With a population of 122 millions of people, Mexico is the ninth largest economy in the World and the seventh largest global exporter
Course: Doing Business in Mexico. Syllabus:
Market Access Tool
❮ Samples - Business in Mexico ❯
EENI - American Students:


text:
Erik Kleven serves as the Executive Chef at Four Daughters Vineyard & Winery. He is known for mixing his west coast background with Midwest comfort food to create unique and memorable dishes. He oversees the culinary operations for both the winery and event center.
Most recently, Chef Kleven was the Sous Chef at Chester's in downtown Rochester. Prior to this position, he worked in several fine dining restaurants in the Reno/Tahoe area, including his time as Executive Chef at Rapscallions in Reno, NV.


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
March 27, 2006
KAREN M. (CLEMENTE) COSTANZA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT/ CROSS-RESPONDENT,v.ANTHONY D. CLEMENTE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hunterdon County, FM-10-224-02.
Submitted October 19, 2005
Before Judges Stern, Parker and Grall.
In this appeal, we are faced with the untoward results of the Family Part entering a judgment of divorce before equitable distribution was resolved, contrary to R. 5:7-8. We are well aware of the pressures placed on trial judges by the court administration to dispose of dissolution matters and "clear" dockets, particularly in the Family Part. No one can dispute the value of a speedy disposition in a family matter. Premature entry of a final judgment, however, may ultimately result in a significant injustice to the parties. Moreover, when trial judges are pressured to do "bench time" without being given the time necessary to adequately research and prepare decisions, the litigants are deprived of a fair and just resolution of their disputes. Incomplete or piecemeal decisions inevitably lead to further post-judgment litigation that is both costly for the litigants and time consuming for the courts at the expense of other cases that await disposition. Case clearance is a noble goal, but we are "constitutionally entrusted with the fair and just resolution of disputes in order to preserve the rule of law and to protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States and this State." Mission Statement of the New Jersey Court System.
In this case, the judgment of divorce was amended twice:
(1) by an order entered on June 28, 2004, addressing equitable distribution; and (2) by an order entered on February 3, 2005, amending the June 28, 2004 order and vacating an order of September 9, 2004 denying reconsideration of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the June 28, 2004 order. The parties cross-appeal from the orders entered on June 28, 2004, September 9, 2004 and February 3, 2005.
The facts and procedural history relevant to this appeal are summarized as follows. The parties were married in October 1992 and had two children. In 2000, before the parties separated, they jointly exercised stock options that plaintiff received through her employment with BEA Systems, Inc. (BEA). At the time, they were unaware that exercising the options would result in a $59,285 tax liability for that year. The parties discovered their liability when preparing their 2000 tax return in 2001 but did not pay the taxes at that time because they did not have the funds to do so.
In October 2001, they separated and the complaint for divorce was filed on December 17, 2001. Shortly after the separation, plaintiff's employment with BEA was terminated, and the parties were required to exercise plaintiff's remaining stock options at that time or loose them. They hired a consultant to advise them regarding the exercise of the stock options and the unpaid 2000 tax debt. In January 2002, they agreed to exercise the remaining options, sell all the stock, and use the proceeds to pay the taxes from the 2000 stock sale as well as other stock sale taxes. After the stock was sold in February 2002, plaintiff transferred "a portion of the proceeds of the sale into a joint account and paid the total joint 2000 tax debt." In turn, the payment of the year 2000 taxes created an alternative minimum tax credit of $59,285 and they used this credit to offset the total taxes that were due.
All of the stock sales were recorded in plaintiff's name, because the stock options were part of her employment compensation package. Likewise, the stock sales were listed as income on plaintiff's W-2 form. According to plaintiff, she properly applied the alternative minimum tax credit toward the tax obligation created by the stock sales. She then paid the remaining 2002 taxes with the stock sale proceeds.
On August 4, 2003, a Judgment of Divorce was entered pursuant to a Property Settlement Agreement (Agreement) placed on the record.*fn1 The judgment states in its entirety:
A Judgment of Divorce having been granted this day and the Amended Judgment of Divorce to be submitted; and good cause appearing:
IT IS On this 4 Day of Aug, 2003: ORDERED that the parties are hereby divorced pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:34-1 et seq.
IT IS further ordered that the Property Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties is hereby incorporated in this judgment it being understood that the court took no testimony on this agreement nor is it ruling on the merits thereof.
The plaintiff may resume her maiden name of Karen Costanza.
On September 19, 2003, the trial court set aside the Agreement for reasons not included in the record. Nine months later, on June 15, 2004, the parties returned for a trial on the unresolved equitable distribution issues. During the trial, plaintiff sought to testify regarding "on-going and extraordinary expenses that she incurred and paid during the parties' separation from 2001 to 2003 for the maintenance of the home and support and care of the children." The issue was whether defendant was obligated to reimburse plaintiff for monies she used for household and children's expenses during the period between her termination from BEA and her re-employment. The trial judge stopped plaintiff's testimony, however, and indicated that he did not think it was "helpful to this case."
At the end of the trial, the judge directed the parties to submit memoranda regarding three disputed issues: (1) whether plaintiff's severance pay or vacation pay is subject to equitable distribution; (2) whether defendant is entitled to equitable distribution of the $59,286 alternative minimum taX credit; and (3) whether defendant is entitled to equitable distribution of the BEA stock sale proceeds in 2002.
After receiving the memoranda, the trial judge rendered his decision on the record and stated:
There were five separate items left for my determination. Number one, the defendant's claim for a credit of $4,906.00, representing his share of the pay-down of the principal on the mortgage for the marital home.
Number two, the plaintiff's claim for $20,000.00 credit, in light of Judge Herr's order, dated January 24, 2003, specifically, paragraph 13 of that order.
Number three, whether the defendant is entitled to one-half the severance pay and vacation pay, given to the defendant on November the 15th, 2001.
Number four, whether the defendant is entitled to one-half the value of the tax credit, in the amount of $29,642.56, generated by the exercise of BEA stock options that go back to the year 2000.
Number five, whether the defendant is entitled to one-half the value of BEA stock sold, as a result of plaintiff exercising stock options, and that one-half value is in the amount of $130,005.35.
The first two items did not involve testimony, but I heard oral argument from both attorneys.
Before I set forth my findings, as to equitable distribution, let me just state that I am, of course, mindful of the case of Rothman v. Rothman, 65 N.J. 219 (1974) [], and the statutory factors set forth in [N.J.S.A.] 2A:34-23.1.
In that regard, the specific property has already been identified as the five items that I have set forth. The value has been established, and as to allocation, I have decided that the allocation should be on a 50/50 basis.
The reason being that the settlement placed on the record, as to all of the other items, as well as the other certifications filed in this case, all contemplated a 50/50 division. Even where there has been disagreement as to whether or not someone's entitled to a credit, each party is seeking 50 percent credit from the other party.
Therefore, there's no reason for me to depart from that division, except for one area, which relates to the distribution of the value of BEA stock, for reasons that I'll set forth hereafter.
The judge then: (1) denied defendant's request for a $4,906 credit for payment of mortgage principal; (2) granted plaintiff's request for a $20,000 credit per the January 24, 2003 order (offsetting the $20,000 advance to the defendant to litigate the divorce); (3) denied defendant's request for a portion of plaintiff's severance and vacation pay; (4) granted defendant's request for one-half of the tax credit in the amount of $29,642.50; and (5) granted defendant's request for a credit from the sale of BEA stock in the amount of $115,257.35. This decision was memorialized in an order entered on June 28, 2004.
Plaintiff's motion for a stay of the order pending appeal was denied.
On July 14, 2004, plaintiff moved for reconsideration, disputing paragraphs 4 and 5 in the June 28, 2004 order, "ask[ing] the court to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law" regarding those paragraphs. On September 9, 2004, the trial court denied plaintiff's motion.
On October 1, 2004, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal challenging paragraphs 4 and 5 of the June 28, 2004 order. The notice of appeal was later amended to include the September 9, 2004 order. On November 10, 2004, plaintiff moved again in the trial court for a stay pending appeal, and the motion was denied. On December 8, 2004, defendant filed a notice of cross-appeal contesting the "[c]redits allowed plaintiff against award of monies to defendant."
In plaintiff's appeal, she argued: (1) the trial judge failed to deduct taxes paid by her from the BEA stock sale for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in limiting plaintiff's testimony; and (3) the trial court failed to take judicial notice of an order entered on August 2, 2002 regarding monies allegedly stolen from a safe in the marital home.
In defendant's cross-appeal, he argued that the trial court (1) erred in reversing a prior ruling which allowed defendant a credit of $29,642.50 and instead allowed plaintiff a credit of $34,194.29; (2) made a mathematical error in allowing plaintiff a credit of $20,000 for an advance of $20,000 on equitable distribution; and (3) erroneously awarded a credit of $29,546 to plaintiff.
On December 2, 2004, the parties appeared for an appellate settlement conference before Judge Naomi Eichen (retired on recall). On December 3, 2004, Judge Eichen issued an order remanding the matter to the trial court because
[A]lthough the trial court issued an oral opinion following the trial and a written memorandum in response to plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the opinions do not contain specific findings of fact, including an analysis of the evidence [presented by] lay and expert [witnesses], or provide reasons for the decision based on said analysis, or make conclusions of law regarding the aforesaid issues, pursuant to R. 1:7-4.
In response to the remand order, the trial judge sent Judge Eichen a lengthy supplemental letter opinion, dated January 6, 2005, in which he substantially reversed and amended his oral decision of June 28, 2004.
In the January 6, 2005 supplemental letter opinion, the judge found that defendant was not entitled to one-half of the $59,285 tax credit that plaintiff received in 2002; rather, defendant is obligated to plaintiff for one-half of the $59,285 ($29,643) tax obligation from the stock option exercise in 2000, and that amount "should be deducted from the total amount of the BEA stock sale proceeds accruing to the Defendant." The judge further found (1) that defendant "is obligated to pay a one-half share of the taxes owed on incremental increases in the stock value between 2000 and 2002," which equaled $3,649 (one-half of $7,298); and (2) that defendant owed one-half of the $1,805.58 in penalties and interest assessed because the 2000 taxes were paid late, equaling $902.79 The judge concluded that defendant's total tax obligation was $34,194.79.
On February 3, 2005, the trial judge entered an order memorializing the January 6 supplemental decision. The February 3 order amended paragraphs 4 and 5 of the June 28, 2004 order and vacated the September 9, 2004 order denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The February 3 order directed defendant to pay one-half of the "original year 2000 taxes on options, taxes on the options' gain in value, and IRS penalties/interest for delayed payment of those taxes, which sums Plaintiff has paid without having been reimbursed."
As a result of the January 6, 2005 supplemental letter opinion and February 3 order, plaintiff withdrew her appeal of paragraph 4 of the June 28, 2004 order and amended her appeal of paragraph 5 to reflect the revision of that paragraph, arguing that "the distribution of the stock sale proceeds still does not reflect [her] payment of the full tax consequences" from the 2001 and 2002 stock sales, or "the extraordinary and on-going expenses" she incurred from the time of separation through the time of the trial.
On January 20, 2005, defendant amended his notice of cross-appeal to include (1) the February 3, 2005 order memorializing the January 6, 2005 supplemental letter opinion and denying him one-half of the 2002 tax credit in the amount of $29,643; (2) that portion of the June 28, 2004 order crediting $29,596 to plaintiff; and (3) that portion of the June 28 order crediting $20,000 to plaintiff, which offset the $20,000 advancement of funds to defendant to litigate this divorce.
We address this appeal to the extent we are able, given the record before us.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in its January 6, 2005 supplemental letter opinion by not deducting all of the taxes paid by plaintiff from the stock sale proceeds. According to plaintiff, "[a]lthough the trial court acknowledged . . . that all taxes incurred on the stocks and paid by the plaintiff were a joint obligation, the trial court did not deduct all such taxes from the BEA stock sale proceeds prior to re-determining the equitable amount due the defendant from the sale proceeds." Plaintiff points to the January 6, 2005 supplemental letter opinion in which the court found that all taxes incurred on the 2001 and 2002 stock sales "must be shared to the same extent and in the same proportion as the assets themselves must be shared." She contends that the trial court correctly found that she had paid $61,090.58 in taxes for the 2000 tax year liability (which included penalties and interest) and that there was an additional $7,298.00 in taxes for the increased stock value, totaling $68,388.58. She maintains, however, that the court failed to recognize that there was $21,520 in "taxes paid by the plaintiff that were not deducted from the stock sale proceeds."
Plaintiff offers the following illustration to demonstrate the tax payments she made relating to the stock sales:
January 6, 2005 letter opinion-$68,389.58
Although the January 6 supplemental letter opinion held defendant responsible for $34,194.79 (one-half of the joint tax liability), plaintiff argues that this does not cover the additional $21,520.00 she paid. Plaintiff, therefore, is seeking credit for one-half of the $21,520.00 ($10,760.00) and to have defendant's equitable share of the proceeds from the stock sale reduced by this amount.
Defendant responds that there is no documentary proof to support plaintiff's claim that she paid $89,909.59 in taxes on the stock sale. He contends that some of the numbers cited by plaintiff were never brought to the attention of the trial court:
[P]laintiff refers to a number of $11,619 claiming she paid this amount on BEA stock sales in 2001. The only tax return submitted in evidence was plaintiff's federal tax return for 2002. This was entered as P-2 (T4). There was nothing before the trial court containing this $11,619 figure except submissions by counsel on various motions. There is no reference to this figure in the 2002 tax return of plaintiff.
N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23, governing equitable distribution, "authorizes the court to determine not only which assets [or liabilities] are eligible for distribution and their respective values, but also how the allocation of the assets [or liabilities] is to be made." Borodinsky v. Borodinsky, 162 N.J. Super. 437, 443 (App. Div. 1978) (citing Rothman v. Rothman, 65 N.J. 219, 232 (1974)). "Where the issue on appeal concerns which assets [or liabilities] are available for distribution or the valuation of those assets [or liabilities], it is apparent that the standard of review is whether the trial judge's findings are supported by adequate credible evidence in the record." Borodinsky, supra, 162 N.J. Super. at 443-44.
In this case, the January 6 supplemental letter opinion found that plaintiff's claims of additional taxes in the amount of $11,619 for the year 2001 and $16,935 for the year 2002 were without merit. We are satisfied that this finding is supported by adequate credible evidence in the record. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred and abused its discretion by refusing to allow her to testify with respect to the total amount of extraordinary expenses she incurred from the time the parties separated to the time of the trial and thereby failed to consider the full cost of these expenses to be deducted from the stock sale proceeds before equitably distributing the assets between the parties. She claims that the court must consider an additional $28,784.00 of extraordinary expenses.
The extraordinary expenses included tutoring, therapy, and summer camp for the parties' children, which were necessary for their health, education and well-being after the separation. Plaintiff maintains that these are joint expenses and must be shared by the parties. Although she was not permitted to testify to the full amount of extraordinary expenses at trial, she listed them in her memorandum to the court after trial. Plaintiff provides the following examples of extraordinary expenses:
Tutoring$624.00 per month
Jan. 2002 -- October 2002$6,240.00
Nov. 2002 - trial date$13,080.00
Therapy: $55.00 $15.00 per session$9,660.00
Dec. 2001 -- July 2003 (138 sessions)
Summer Camp: $1800.00 per summer x 3 summers$5,400.00
Total Expenses For Children$34,380.00
The trial court allowed only the following:
Son's Tutoring$2,596.00
Son's Therapy$1,200.00
Son's Summer Camp$1,800.00
Defendant responds that he should not be liable for the extraordinary expenses, arguing:
Unfortunately plaintiff had treated the children as though she was their sole parent. As indicated in paragraph 10 of Judge Herr's Order of October 25, 2002, defendant had certified to the court that plaintiff had not consulted with him regarding the children's activities. He was not consulted regarding the tutoring or therapy and did not believe therapy was necessary or effective.
The actions of the plaintiff regarding the children constituted not only a violation of R.5:8-5 but a violation of paragraph 2(d) of Final Judgment Fixing Custody and Parenting Time which was entered as a court Order.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in its January 6 supplemental letter opinion by allowing plaintiff's award of $29,645.00 for child care expenses to stand but reversing the $29,642.50 credit the court had previously awarded to defendant. He argues that "[t]he obvious result was to improperly enrich the plaintiff at defendant's expense." Plaintiff replies that she was not unjustly enriched, but was "denied full reimbursement for all of the extraordinary expenses she incurred for the children during that period of time."
"N.J.R.E. 403 specifically allows a judge, in his or her discretion, to exclude otherwise admissible evidence under specified circumstances. These decisions are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard." Benevenga v. Digregorio, 325 N.J. Super. 27, 32 (App. Div. 1999) (citing State v. Erazo, 126 N.J. 112, 131 (1991), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 79 (2000)). "'Traditional rules of appellate review require substantial deference to a trial court's evidentiary rulings.'" Benevenga, supra, 325 N.J. Super. at 32 (quoting State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383, 453 (1998)).
The issue here is whether the court abused its discretion by limiting plaintiff's testimony regarding her extraordinary expenses. In reading the trial transcript it is clear that plaintiff was allowed to testify respecting her extraordinary expenses, but was limited to those expenses that were incurred during the time she was out of work and not supported by severance pay. Plaintiff testified that she and defendant had agreed that she would use the stock sale proceeds to maintain the home and pay the children's expenses during this period of time.
The judge determined that plaintiff lost her job in October 2001 and received severance pay for the months of November, December and January. He concluded, and plaintiff conceded, that the parties' agreement covered the months after the severance pay expired: February, March, April, and May of 2002. The court then limited plaintiff's testimony regarding the extraordinary expenses to this period.
In his July 28, 2004 decision on the record, the judge stated:
I find that the defendant did not agree that the proceeds from this stock could be used by the plaintiff exclusively. Both parties did agree, however, that the stock would be sold.
From November, 2001, until June, 2002, the plaintiff was out of work. Other than severance pay, she did receive unemployment. The plaintiff testified that the defendant paid her, weekly, $500.00, which was $250.00 less than when they were together.
Plaintiff also had certain other extraordinary expenses during this time, such as her son's tutoring, her son's therapy, and summer camp.
The plaintiff had a shortfall, financially, and used the proceeds from the stock for certain necessary expenses for herself and the children, until she went back to work in June, 2002.
I find these expenses as follows. There were four months of no income from her employment. That amounted to about $24,000.00. Her son's tutoring, during the period of unemployment, came to $2,596.00, at six twenty-four a month, times that four months. Her son's therapy, $300.00 a month, times the four month period, $1,200.00. Summer camp was $1,800.
That totals $29,596.00. That sum will be deducted from $260,596.00, leaving $230,514.70. I find that plaintiff is entitled to one-half of that sum or $115,257.35.
We have carefully reviewed the record and we are satisfied that the evidence adequately supports the deduction of $29,596 prior to equitable distribution, effectively awarding that amount to plaintiff for the extraordinary expenses incurred by plaintiff for the children during the months of February, March, April and May 2002.
Plaintiff next argues that the "trial court's failure to take judicial notice of the theft of the monies from the safe in the marital home was an abuse of discretion and error and must be reversed." She claims that the amount of money stolen should have been deducted before distribution of the stock sale proceeds.
Plaintiff explains that the theft issue was heard by Judge Herr on August 2, 2002. Plaintiff provided proof to Judge Herr of compliance with defendant's request to file an insurance claim and police report. According to plaintiff, the insurance company paid only $200 of the claim. Judge Herr's August 2, 2002 order indicated that defendant's demand for a police report and insurance claim was moot.
Plaintiff argues that she intended to testify at trial regarding the $13,000 stolen from the safe, but "she was unable to ask that the court take judicial notice of the theft or that the court deduct the stolen money from the stock sale proceeds prior to their distribution between the parties."
Following the trial, plaintiff's memorandum requested the court to take judicial notice of the theft and Judge Herr's order and to deduct the stolen $13,000 from the stock sale proceeds before distribution to the parties. The court did not address this issue in any of its decisions, and plaintiff claims that it abused its discretion by failing to do so.
Judicial notice is not the issue here. Judicial notice is reserved for matters outside the record, not for issues and orders that have been integral to the case and are incorporated in the record. N.J.R.E. 201. The theft had been addressed previously in the litigation and in Judge Herr's order of August 2, 2002. It has been an integral part of the record since at least August 2002, and, consequently, the question is whether the trial judge erred in failing to address the issue.
Given that the issue was never addressed at trial, there is no evidence upon which we can decide it. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to develop evidence on this issue and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the $13,000 should have been factored into equitable distribution.
In his cross-appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in reversing its award of $29,642.50 to defendant and giving a credit of $34,194.70 to plaintiff because it deprived him use of this amount on his tax returns. Defendant contends that the court incorrectly stated in its January 6 supplemental letter opinion that plaintiff's $59,286 credit on her tax return did not accrue to her benefit. He claims that plaintiff "utilized the credit to reduce her tax on her earnings as well as sale of BEA securities" and that he was not able to take advantage of such a credit.
Defendant further argues that the court erred in finding that plaintiff was entitled to an additional credit of $3,649, which is one-half of the taxes for the increased value of the BEA stock from 2000 to 2002. He maintains that there is no proof that the stock price increased; rather, he maintains that the "stock had diminished substantially during the period in question." Defendant contends that the court misinterpreted the testimony of his expert, Jerome Newler, who opined that since the stock was acquired during the marriage, the tax liability should be taken from joint marital funds. Defendant insists that Newler was "only referring to a hypothetical not [an] actual withdrawal."
Plaintiff responds that she did not use the alternative minimum tax credit to offset the tax obligation on her own income. She argues "that the plaintiff had paid the 2000 taxes from 2002 stock sale proceeds and that the Alternative Minimum Tax Credit was properly utilized by the plaintiff to reduce the parties' joint tax obligation incurred as a result of the sale of the marital stocks." She urges that the judge correctly found that defendant was not entitled to the $29,642.50 he had been awarded previously.
In his January 6, 2005 supplemental letter opinion, the trial judge reversed himself, relying on the expert's testimony and plaintiff's 2002 check to the IRS:
Upon re-reviewing the entire matter I find that I am compelled to change my conclusion with regard to taxes. I find that the 2000 "options exercise" tax was paid from the funds of the 2002 stock sale and not from the parties' joint wages in 2000, and I find that the 2002 tax credit that Defense expert referred to as a refund to Plaintiff was instead merely a method intended to zero-out double taxation in tax year 2002 of that portion of stock value on which tax had already been assessed in 2000; thus there was no refund to be shared.
Late [in] the day of the June 15 trial, after 103 pages of testimony by both parties' accounting experts, counsel for the Defendant proffered a February 2002 check to the IRS in the amount of $61,090.58. This amount represented the 2000 stock options exercise tax plus interest and penalties accruing over the course of time. It was sent to the I.R.S. approximately 13 days after the stock sale proceeds were realized on or about February 12, 2002.
The payment of 2000 taxes by that check represents the crux of the error as to the timing of the 2000 tax payment, made in repeated testimony by Defendant's expert and also repeated by both attorneys during direct and cross examination, and upon which I relied. I now find all testimony prior to page 104 as to that issue is irreconcilable with this irrefutable evidence that the parties did not jointly pay their 2000 stock options tax from "their" wages while married, but that the 2000 options tax when finally paid in late February 2002 was paid from the proceeds of sale thirteen days earlier.
Likewise, the credit allowed by the I.R.S. on the value of the stock sold in 2002 did not accrue to Plaintiff's benefit but instead served to benefit both parities by avoiding double-taxation on that portion of the stock sold in 2002 that had already been taxed on the 2000 tax return.
I find that the amount allocated to Defendant out of the gross stock sale proceeds should instead have been allocated to him on net proceeds, after deducting the various taxes, penalties and interest shown at trial to have been paid. This was a mistake on my part.
The court further stated:
Given that the taxes for the exercise were not paid in 2000 but rather were paid 13 days after the receipt of the stock sale proceeds, I find Defendant's purported inability to use the $59,285 credit illusory. I am cognizant of the fact that Defendant did not get the use of the stock sale funds when those funds came in because they were placed in a separate account by Plaintiff and held there pending equitable distribution. However Defendant was also never denied use of the tax credits lowering monies owed the government, simply because the zeroing out of duplicate taxes in the 2002 return did not constitute a "refund" of (2000) taxes but rather a correction to avoid duplicate taxation, and because the tax payment itself was never drawn from joint wages but from stock sale[] proceeds. Therefore Defendant was never deprived of any funds -- in the year 2000 or any time afterward.
"Where the issue on appeal concerns which assets are available for distribution or the valuation of those assets . . . the standard of review is whether the trial judge's findings are supported by adequate credible evidence in the record." Borodinsky, supra, 162 N.J. Super. at 443-44.
Here, it appears that there was adequate credible evidence in the record to support the finding that the award to defendant of $29,642.50 was incorrect and that plaintiff was entitled to receive a credit of $34,194.70. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).
Defendant next argues that the trial court made a mathematical error by awarding plaintiff the full amount of the $20,000 advance paid to defendant rather than equitably distributing this amount. This error was not raised before the trial court.
On January 24, 2004, the trial court granted defendant's application for "an advance on equitable distribution" in the amount of $20,000. Defendant claims that this advance was paid from marital funds. In its June 28, 2004 order, the court credited plaintiff for the full $20,000 advancement. Defendant argues that the effect of the $20,000 credit to plaintiff deprived him of $10,000 to which he was entitled. He explained that this $20,000 derived from marital funds and was subject to equitable distribution, thus $10,000 belonged to him and $10,000 belonged to plaintiff.
Plaintiff responds that the trial court properly found "the $20,000.00 distribution to the defendant as Ordered by Judge Herr 'constituted a $20,000.00 advance out of marital funds, to the defendant, which at that time were in control of the plaintiff. Since the defendant received $20,000.00, plaintiff is entitled to an equal credit of $20,000.00 from the defendant.'" That is not what she argued at trial, however. At trial, plaintiff claimed $10,000 of the $20,000 advanced to defendant in April 2002.
In our view, this is not a "mathematical error" as defendant claims. Rather, the issue is whether the trial court committed plain error in awarding plaintiff the entire $20,000 sum rather than distributing it equally between the parties. In his oral decision on June 28, 2004, the trial judge framed the issue as "whether the plaintiff is entitled to a $20,000 credit" and held that "[s]ince the defendant received $20,000.00, plaintiff is entitled to an equal credit of $20,000.00, from defendant," but the court did not provide further explanation.
In light of plaintiff's concession at trial that she was only entitled to a $10,000 reimbursement on the $20,000 advanced to defendant, the trial court committed plain error in awarding her the full $20,000. We, therefore, reverse this portion of the amended judgment and remand this matter to the trial court to amend the judgment to reflect a $10,000 reimbursement to plaintiff.
To summarize our decision, we affirm on all issues, except (1) we reverse the award of $20,000 to plaintiff and order the trial court to amend this figure to $10,000; and (2) remand the issue of whether the $13,000 theft should be factored into equitable distribution and how it should be distributed, if at all.
We add a final comment with respect to the record before us. The parties were subjected to more extensive litigation and its incumbent costs than necessary because (1) the judgment of divorce was entered on August 4, 2003, before the parties resolved all of the issues, contrary to R. 5:7-8; (2) the judgment of divorce was entered without requiring the parties append a written copy of the Property Settlement Agreement, contrary to R. 4:42-1(a)(4) and Entress v. Entress, 376 N.J. Super. 125, 134 (App. Div. 2005); (3) the trial on equitable distribution issues was delayed for almost a full year after entry of the judgment of divorce; (4) the trial judge failed to provide an adequate statement of findings and conclusions after trial contrary to R. 1:7-4(a); and (5) the trial judge failed to address all of the issues after the matter was temporarily remanded for supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law.
We are well aware of the extraordinary calendar burdens on Family Part judges and the pressures they face to "clear" numbers of cases. The desire to clear cases, however, must not override the need to have a full, fair and final resolution of all issues.
Trial judges are prohibited from entering judgments before all issues have been resolved, except "with the approval of the Family Presiding Judge, which approval shall be granted only in extraordinary circumstances and for good cause shown." R. 5:7-8.
In our view, there are very few circumstances in which a judgment may be entered prior to resolution of all issues and those circumstances should be fully explained at the time the judgment is entered.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded in part. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
425g/14oz Odlums Porridge Oatflakes
1 Teaspoon Odlums Bread Soda (sieved)
1 x 500g Tub Fat Free Natural Yogurt
1 level Teaspoon Salt
1 Tablespoon of each Sesame, Poppy, Sunflower, & Pumpkin Seeds
1 Tablespoon Linseed
- Pre heat oven to 180°C/350°F/Gas 4. Spray a 900g/2lb loaf with 1 Calorie Sunflower Spray.
- Put the yogurt into a large mixing bowl. Add the oatflakes, bread soda, salt & seeds.
- Mix well until a thick dough is formed.
- Transfer to the prepared tin. Smooth top with back of spoon dipped in cold water.
- Place in centre of oven and bake for 40 to 45 minutes until risen & golden brown.
- Leave in tin for 5 minutes then turn onto wire tray to cool.
Note : The yoghurt container washed and dried can be used to measure oats. This recipe calls for 2 container-fulls.


text:
You are currently using an unsupported web browser.
We support the latest versions of these browsers:
If you have any problems while attempting to download a browser, you should contact your organization's system administrator.
For any questions related to Cvent, feel free to contact our Customer Care team.
Hanting Express Shanghai Tianlin is located in Shanghai, China. We offer spacious and comfortable guestrooms. Our location provide easy access to city attraction. We look forward to see you soon.
You must be logged in to view contact information for this supplier. Sign up for a free Cvent account today.


text:
Lake Somerville Trail is a 8.2 mile moderately trafficked loop trail located near Somerville, TX that features beautiful wild flowers and is good for all skill levels. The trail offers a number of activity options and is accessible from February until November. Dogs are also able to use this trail but must be kept on leash.
dogs on leash
kid friendly
mountain biking
nature trips
trail running
horseback riding
wild flowers
over grown
Lake Somerville State Park Trailway is a 26 mile out and back trail located near Somerville, Texas that features beautiful wild flowers and is rated as moderate. The trail offers a number of activity options and is accessible year-round.
It's been a while since I rode this trail (2 years), so some of the trail features might be different. The trail is 13 miles between each unit (Birch Creek and Nails Creek). No doubt it's long and I rode on a 100 degree day. Plan for lots of water. I ran out, however I got a couple of bottles at the parks office vending machine for the ride back. Most of the trail is double track and most of it's flat. No challenges with rocks. However, dry sand was a problem. I would recommend this track for a long haul ride.