Michael Sternesky v. Ana Cecilia Salcie-Sternesky

10-22-07 A-5932-05T3

We consider equitable distribution of an accidental
disability retirement allowance awarded by the Board of Trustees
of the Police and Fire Retirement System (PFRS). The Board has
not provided guidance on segregation of the marital and
individual components of a disability pension, as we encouraged
in Larrison v. Larrison, 392 N.J. Super. 1, 18 (App. Div. 2007).
The parties in this case did not provide the trial court with
evidence that would permit such segregation, which we found
necessary in Larrison and Avallone v. Avallone, 275 N.J. Super.
575 (App. Div. 1994). We provide a formula for identification
of the marital component of a PFRS accidental disability
retirement allowance, which is inferable from the statutory
scheme and decisions of our courts addressing equitable
distribution of retirement assets, and we hold that a trial
court should apply that formula in the absence of relevant
evidence or guidance from the Legislature or Board.

10-17-07 In the Matter of the Trust Under Agreement of Blanche
P. Billings Vander Poel

A-0983-04T5

The settlor established a trust in 1950 under New Jersey
law with her son as income beneficiary for life and a gift of
the remainder to his "issue." Two years later the son married a
woman with a ten-year-old daughter, the appellant, and three
natural children resulted from that marriage. The son inquired
into adopting the appellant as a minor, but was unable to do so
because the family was then living abroad. Later he adopted the
appellant as an adult, some thirteen years after the settlor's
death.

Held that while an adopted child will equally participate
in a remainder class gift to "issue," an adult adoptee may not
so inherit from a "stranger to the adoption." The concept of
equitable adoption, while providing a judicial remedy in the
case of a child, is inapplicable to an adult adoptee. The
record indicated that the settlor's probable intention was not
to include an adopted child in the remainder gift to her son's
issue.

6-13-07 M.E.F. v. A.B.F.
A-2501-05T1

In this case interpreting the spousal impoverishment
provisions of the Medicaid Catastrophic Care Act of 1988, we
discuss the circumstances in which a community spouse may obtain
a court order of support that supersedes the monthly income
allowance, determined through the administrative process, that
is deducted from the remaining assets of an institutionalized
spouse receiving Medicaid assistance in payment for his nursing
home care. We also discstate court proceedings.