Many people direct the disposition of their bank accounts, investments, retirement accounts and life insurance upon their death by designating beneficiaries of those assets. When an asset passes by beneficiary designation, otherwise called a pay-on-death provision, it becomes a non-probate asset and therefore passes outside of a person’s probate estate.

In New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, among other states, a divorce automatically revokes any provisions in a will which benefit a former spouse, unless the will expressly states otherwise. Similarly, New Jersey statute 3B:3-14 provides that a divorce revokes any revocable appointment directing the disposition of property – such as a beneficiary designation – to a former spouse unless the governing instrument, court order, or divorce agreement dividing marital assets expressly states otherwise.

This year, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether a decedent’s pay-on-death provision on his U.S. savings bonds survived his divorce and satisfied the terms of his divorce settlement agreement (“DSA”). The decedent, Michael Jones (“Michael”), bought Series EE U.S. savings bonds while married to Jeanine Jones (“Jeanine”) and named her as the pay-on-death beneficiary of the bonds. When Michael and Jeanine divorced in 2018, the DSA required Michael to pay Jeanine $200,000 over time and also stated that any marital asset not specifically listed in the DSA “belong[ed] to the party who ha[d] it currently in their possession.” The DSA did not explicitly mention the savings bonds.

On September 12th, 2025, Governor Murphy legalized “natural organic reduction” making New Jersey the 14th state to permit the composting of human bodies as an alternative to traditional burial or cremation. While the Board of Mortuary Science has yet to issue regulations which will govern the process, funeral businesses are expected to become licensed and start offering this service, also known as “controlled supervised decomposition,” by July 2026.

Advocates state that human composting is environmentally friendly because it does not use toxic embalming chemicals, uses less energy, and releases less carbon into the atmosphere than cremation. It also requires less land and leaves less of a carbon footprint than traditional burial.

Human composting uses a closed reusable vessel, along with other organic materials, to encourage natural decomposition over a 30 to 45 day process. Approximately 1 cubic meter of nutrient rich soil is created to support the ecosystem. Safety protocols, consumer protections, as well as how and where the transformed soil can be utilized will be clarified in the regulations.

On April 17th, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Cunningham v. Cornell University establishing a plaintiff-friendly pleading standard applicable to prohibited transaction claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The Court’s holding makes it significantly easier for plaintiffs to defeat early-stage motions to dismiss, engage in costly discovery, and extract a settlement as to an alleged prohibited transaction claim.

Background

ERISA bars certain prohibited transactions between a plan and a related party, i.e. a “party-in-interest,” to prevent conflicts of interest. However, there are several exemptions that allow plans to interact or conduct business with a party-in-interest if specific requirements are met. In Cunningham, the plaintiffs accused Cornell’s retirement plans of engaging in prohibited transactions by paying excessive fees for recordkeeping and other administrative services. The University responded that these transactions were exempt under ERISA  Section 408(b)(2), which allows certain transactions with parties-in-interest if the following three (3) requirements are met: 1) the service is necessary for the establishment and operation of the plan, 2) such service is furnished under a reasonable contract or arrangement, and 3) compensation paid for the service is reasonable. The district court dismissed the participants’ transaction claims, and the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the plaintiffs must plead and prove the absence of such exemptions in order to state a claim under ERISA Section 406(a)(1)(C).

In an era where digital transactions are becoming increasingly prevalent, the mechanisms by which financial institutions inform customers of potential fraudulent activities are under scrutiny. Recently proposed revisions seek not only to bolster security measures but also to ensure that customers are promptly and clearly notified, thus minimizing the risk of financial loss.

Possible Changes to Bank’s Notice of Suspected Fraud Under Review

On the first day of the 2024 New Jersey legislative session, Assembly Bill No. 1832 was introduced and referred to committee. If approved as enacted, A1832 would require financial institutions to release financial records to adult protective services if there is suspected fraud of a vulnerable adult or senior customer. It would also permit adult protective services to release these records to law enforcement, where necessary.

In an era where digital transactions are becoming increasingly prevalent, the mechanisms by which financial institutions inform customers of potential fraudulent activities are under scrutiny.  Recently proposed revisions seek not only to bolster security measures but also to ensure that customers are promptly and clearly notified, thus minimizing the risk of financial loss.

Possible Changes to Bank’s Notice of Suspected Fraud Under Review

On the first day of the 2024 New Jersey legislative session, Assembly Bill No. 1832 was introduced and referred to committee. If approved as enacted, A1832 would require financial institutions to release financial records to adult protective services if there is suspected fraud of a vulnerable adult or senior customer. It would also permit adult protective services to release these records to law enforcement, where necessary.

Whether a Testator can compel beneficiaries of an Estate to arbitrate potential disputes regarding the enforcement, interpretation, and administration of a Last Will and Testament by including a mandatory arbitration provision is a novel legal issue which, until recently, had not been considered by the courts in New Jersey. For those hoping that an arbitration provision could be used when drafting a Last Will and Testament to bar litigation in court and thereby reduce the possible time and expense of estate disputes, a recent New Jersey decision dashed such hopes and held that arbitration provisions in a will are unenforceable.

In the case of In Re Estate of Hekemian, the plaintiff, Richard E. Hekemian, one of the Decedent’s four sons and a beneficiary of his Estate, filed a lawsuit seeking compensation from two of his brothers, Peter S. Hekemian and Edward G. Imperatore, in their capacities as Co-Executors of their late father’s Estate. Upon notice of the litigation, the defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the Decedent’s Will. In turn, the plaintiff opposed the motion claiming that the arbitration provision in the will is invalid under New Jersey.

While noting that the State of New Jersey, as a matter of public policy, generally favors arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism, the New Jersey Superior Court determined that an arbitration provision in a Decedent’s Last Will and Testament was unenforceable. The court began its analysis by noting the hallmark principle that a testator’s intent should be honored and upheld. To wit, the court cited to the statute at N.J.S.A. 3B:3-33.1 which states that “the intention of a testator as expressed in his will controls the legal effects of his dispositions”.

While many may be familiar with Special Needs Trusts, some are still not familiar with tax-free Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) savings accounts which were created under a 2014 federal law and currently available in New Jersey (and 46 other states). Funded correctly, ABLE accounts permit disabled individuals and their families to save money for disability-related expenses without compromising eligibility for needs-based benefits such as SSI, Medicaid, and other education, housing, health and food stamp benefits (such as FAFSA and SNAP). To establish an account, the designated beneficiary (and owner) of an ABLE account must be legally blind or have a medical disability that occurred prior to age 26. While interest earned on the account is tax-free, ABLE accounts with assets up to and including $100,000 are disregarded as a resource for SSI purposes. Distributions from the ABLE account may be made only to or for the benefit of the disabled individual for “qualified disability expenses,” which broadly include education, housing, transportation, assistive technology, health and wellness, legal and funeral expenses, etc. Starting in 2022, and for the first time in four years, annual contributions to an ABLE account increased to $16,000 (matching the 2022 annual gift tax exclusion amount). While ABLE account balances are subject to Medicaid estate recovery upon the death of the disabled beneficiary, in certain disability planning circumstances the utilization of an ABLE account, either alone or in conjunction with a Special Needs Trust, may be an integral part of smart disability planning.

On Monday, Jan. 24, 2022, in the case Hughes vs. Northwestern, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a fiduciary’s duty to monitor investments in defined contribution retirement plans means the plan cannot include non-prudent investments. In reaching this conclusion, the Court recognized that fiduciaries have an ongoing obligation to monitor plan investments. Simply offering participants a diverse menu of investment options is not sufficient to insulate fiduciaries from potential liability.

The Holding in Hughes v. Northwestern.

In Hughes, employees of Northwestern University participated in two defined contribution 401(k) plans offered by the University. The employees alleged that the trustees of the plans breached their fiduciary duty to the participants by “(1) failing to monitor and control recordkeeping fees, resulting in unreasonably high costs to plan participants; (2) offering mutual funds and annuities in the form of “retail” share classes that carried higher fees than those charged for otherwise identical share classes (institutional share class) of the same investments; and (3) offering investment options that were likely to confuse investors.” Both the trial court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals accepted Northwestern’s argument that even if some options were not prudent, there was no violation of ERISA’s prudence standard because the plans offered a diverse menu of investment options that the plaintiffs agreed were prudent.

On November 4, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) requiring employers of 100 or more to adopt COVID-19 policies, maintain rosters of vaccinated employees, and provide paid time off to employees to vaccinate or recover from its effect. These mandates were to go into effect on January 10, 2022. By February 9, 2022, employers were to require employees to show proof of COVID-19 vaccination or undergo weekly testing.

On that same date the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued an interim rule mandating COVID-19 vaccination and other requirements for workers in most healthcare settings participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs by January 22, 2022.

Legal challenges quickly wound their way through the federal courts, leaving businesses in limbo about their obligations to implement these vaccination and testing mandates. On January 13, 2022 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued decisions on both mandates, imposing a stay on the OSHA ETS vaccination and testing mandates, but upholding the vaccination mandate and other aspects of the CMS for healthcare facilities.

After much anticipation, New Jersey’s Governor Murphy signed the “New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act” into law on February 22, 2021. While this law made adult use recreational cannabis legal, the extensive law, together with a few “clean up bills,” did a whole lot more than legalization. In hundreds of pages, this law created the broad framework for the development and regulation of the entire cannabis industry including licensing, manufacture, distribution, taxation, enforcement, as well as criminal and social justice reforms for the possession and use of cannabis. It is therefore not surprising that some issues of particular importance to employers, such as drug testing and carve-outs for certain industries, are still hazy.

Importantly, while some provisions of the law became effective immediately, the provisions governing employment and those “activities associated with the personal use of cannabis,” are not operative until the newly appointed five member Cannabis Regulatory Commission adopts initial rules and regulations. These regulations, which will interpret and instruct how the law will be implemented, are required sometime within 180 days of the law’s adoption, or by mid-August 2021.

How does recreational marijuana impact Zero Tolerance Marijuana Policies?

Contact Information