Merger / Survival. The basis of the malpractice claim in DiPietro is also instructive for mediators. The client alleged that the attorney negligently failed to advise him on the difference between “merger” and “survival” as they relate to the subsequent modification of the agreement. Note, too, the client’s statements during the judge’s colloquy that he understood the agreement and was satisfied with the advice of counsel do not preclude a malpractice action. If there’s a lesson in here — perhaps it is that mediators should ask clients to sign a document confirming their understanding of these terms. DiPietro v. Erickson, 2010 WL 1178410 (Mass.Super.) (March 16, 2010)
- Alimony
- Arbitration of Family Law Issues
- Attorney-Client Privilege
- Attribution of Income
- Beneficiary Designation
- Child Support
- College
- Contempt
- Dependency Exemptions
- Division of Assets
- Earned Bonus
- Earning Capacity / Imputed Income
- Earnings in a Sub-S
- Emancipation
- Financial Restraining Order on Assets
- Foreign Custody
- Grandparent Visitation
- Health Insurance
- Imputing Income
- Income Equalization
- Income of Second Spouse
- Inheritance
- Inherited Assets
- Joint Legal Custody
- Judicial Discretion
- Jurisdiction
- Life Insurance
- Marital Estate
- Mediation / Unauthorized Practice of Law
- Merger and Survival
- Modification
- Non-Disparagement Provision
- Parent Coordinator
- Parental Fitness
- Parenting Time
- Plan Document Rule
- Postnuptial
- Prenuptial
- QDRO
- “Real Advantage” Standard
- Restraining Order
- Retained Earnings
- Retroactive Support
- Rights of Unmarried Partners
- Same Sex Marriage
- Self-Employment Income
- Stock Options
- Valuation Date
