Recently in Family Law Category

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that the Second Amendment right to bear arms has its limits, particularly with regard to a person under a domestic violence order.

Applying intermediate scrutiny, the Fourth Circuit upheld a federal law that prohibits the subject of a domestic violence order from owning or possessing a firearm or ammunition. In the case, the defendant who challenged the law was bound by a domestic violence order stemming from a gun-related incident.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a Tax Court opinion that set a two-year statute of limitations on innocent spouse relief claims, reports the Journal of Accountancy.

For all you non-tax lawyers out there, let’s put it in plain English. The Tax Court was overruled by the Fourth Circuit on a statute of limitations issue.

Easy enough?

Treasury Regulations are how tax lawyers understand the provisions of the Tax Code. And this particular Treas. Reg. said that there was a two-year statute of limitations to bring a claim for innocent spouse relief.

In US v. Novak, No. 08-5254, the court of appeals faced an appeal from a conviction under 18 U.S.C. section 228(a)(3) for willfully failing to pay child support.

The court of appeals rejected two challenges to the district court's jury instructions on venue, finding that: 1) the district court did not err when it defined "resided" as "the act or fact of living in a given place permanently or for an extended period of time," and the evidence was sufficient, for purposes of venue, to establish that defendant resided in the Eastern District of Virginia during the time period alleged in the indictment; and 2) even assuming the district court's instruction was erroneous, defendant could not show any harm.   

Related Resources

• Full Text of US v. Novak

In a husband's petition for wrongful removal under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. section 11601 against his wife for taking their four children from Australia to the US after their failed marriage reconciliation attempt, district court's order denying his petition is affirmed as:  1) district court properly determined that the husband failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the quadruplets' habitual residence was Australia; 2) the district court's finding that there was no shared parental intent to abandon the US as the quadruplets' habitual residence is not clearly erroneous; and 3) there are several objective factors supporting the district court's conclusion that the quadruplets never became acclimatized to Australia during their two-month stay.   

Read Maxwell v. Maxwell, No. 08-1945

Appellate Information

Argued: September 22 2009

Decided: November 30, 2009

Judges

Opinion by District Judge Seymour

Counsel

For Appellant:  Neil Joshua Saltzman, Law Office of Neil J. Saltzman

For Appellee:  Bradley B. Honnold, The Honnold Law Firm, PA.