For many, designating a portion of one’s estate to charities and charitable purposes is an essential and significant part of their Last Will and Testament. Those seeking to make contributions to causes and organizations they are passionate about should be wary of the costs entailed in how such contributions are distributed. Under New Jersey law, when such contributions are designated in the form of a residuary bequest, the State Attorney General is required to exercise its power to protect the public’s interest in charitable gifts and seek costly accounting and lengthy review services, which ultimately drain the estate of funds it could have extended to the aforementioned charitable causes and organizations.

Under N.J. Ct. R. 4:80-6 and R. 4:28-4, the New Jersey State Attorney General is required to review and approve the accounting and administration of an estate when the estate leaves a residuary, or percentage, amount to a charitable organization. The Office of the Attorney General will require the filing of: (1) intermediate and/or final Accounting; (2) statement and calculations of any commissions paid to trustees or executors; (3) final distribution and disbursement schedule of bequests; (4) affidavit of any attorney’s and accountant’s rendered services; and (5) Refunding Bond and Releases executed by the charitable beneficiaries.

After receiving such documentation, the Attorney General’s office must approve the amount the charitable beneficiaries are being given, and such approvals could face backlogs and other administrative delays. Further, a thorough examination into the charitable organization could jeopardize its ability to receive its bequest and could even result in a court redirecting the bequest to a different charity under the cy pres doctrine, as a recent decision in the Appellate Division revealed. See Matter of Estate of Heinecke, No. A-3604-21, 2024 WL 1125186 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. March 15, 2024).

The U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) final regulation increasing the salary threshold for the “white collar” overtime exemption came to a halt on November 15, 2024, when the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas vacated and set aside the regulation as exceeding the DOL’s statutory rulemaking authority.

The regulation sought to increase the salary requirements established in 1975 for the executive, administrative, and professional (“EAP”) exemptions (commonly referred to as the “white collar” exemptions) to the overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The FLSA generally requires overtime pay for employees who work over forty hours in a week. However, under the EAP exemptions, those overtime requirements do not apply to employees employed in a bona fide administrative, executive, or professional capacity. To be classified under one of the EAP exemptions, the employee must i) meet or exceed a minimum salary requirement, and ii) meet certain duties tests mandated by the FLSA.

The challenged rule issued by the DOL raised the previous minimum salary requirement of $684 per week, or $35,568 per year, in three stages. The initial stage was rolled out on July 1, 2024, and raised the minimum salary for EAP overtime exemption to $844 per week, or $43,880 per year, placing an estimated one million previously exempt employees into nonexempt status. The second rollout, which was set to take place on January 1, 2025, sought to raise the minimum salary requirement to $1,128 per week/$58,656 per year. Following these initial increases, the minimum salary requirement was set to be raised every three years based on contemporary earnings data.

Contact Information