The Court of Appeals in Burtoff v. Burtoff, still remains instructional as to how the Court would scrutinize validity of a prenuptial agreement in litigation. There, Mrs. Burtoff challenged the validity of the prenuptial agreement particularity provisions pertaining to spousal support in an event of separation and divorce. The Court again iterated that prenuptial agreements are generally considered contracts with their enforcement taking on the same criteria as other contracts but with a higher degree of scrutiny to ensure fairness, and balance. Specifically, the Court expounded in holding such contracts valid that with divorce such a commonplace fact of life,
Read More
Monthly Archives September 2020
WEIGHTY CONSIDERATION IN COMPETING ADOPTION CASES: RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The Court of Appeals in IN RE PETITION OF J.B.S. & V.S.S.; IN RE PETITION OF R.H., decided on September 10, 2020, reversed the lower court giving “weighty consideration” to parental choice in a competing adoption litigation. Generally, the weighty consideration doctrine requires a court deciding between competing adoption petitions to grant the petition that the child’s biological parent favors unless the court finds “by clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s choice of custodian is clearly contrary to the child’s best interest. That is, the weighty consideration establishes a strong presumption that the parent’s preference is in the child’s
Read More
POSSESSION OF LESS THAN TWO OUNCES NOT PWID: RECENT DC COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
The DC Court of Appeals in Kornegay v. U.S., decided on September 3, 2020, clarified whether possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana can qualify as Possession With Intent to Distribute (“PWID”), which still remains illegal. Appellant was pulled over during a routine traffic stop and the Park Policer Officers had seized few zip lock bags, a scale, and size-able amount of cash from him with total weight of marijuana at 1.73 ounces. He was charged with PWID and at trial a Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) officer testified as an expert in the “packaging, distribution, and sale of marijuana
Read More
DC CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER VIOLATION: HEARSAY EVIDENCE
In Holman v. D.C., the Court of Appeals determined whether missed calls on a cell phone violated a no contact provision of a Civil Protection Order (“CPO).” The trial court there had ruled that the appellant violated the CPO voluntarily and on purpose, and not by mistake or accident, in two respects: By coming within 100 feet of petitioner and her home, and By contacting the petitioner via telephone marked as missed calls. Appellant filed a timely appeal challenging only the conviction on the second count, the trial court’s admission of Officer Davis’s evidence of the missed calls over his hearsay
Read More