On March 13, 2013, the highest court of our state granted my Petition for Certification, in which I asked the Supreme Court to consider the case of a retired fireman and his continuing battle to conduct estate planning for the benefit of his severely disabled son. This is the second time the Supreme Court has granted my request for certification and accepted this case for review. I previously blogged about this case, and the most recent petition for certification, here.

I am pleased to report that on October 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted motions of several non-profit organizations to appear and argue in the case on behalf of their organizations, as amicus curiae. An amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” may ask to appear in a case based on the public importance of the case, and the special interest or expertise that the amicus curiae can bring to the case.  Here, the Guardianship Association of New Jersey, Inc. (“GANJI”), the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, Inc. (“NAELA”), the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, New Jersey Chapter (“NAELA-NJ”), and the Special Needs Alliance (“SNA”) were all granted permission to appear as amicus curiae. All of these organizations filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to reverse the Appellate Division’s decision.

GANJI is a state-wide organization of professionals and others committed to supporting guardians and assisting persons with disabilities. NAELA-NJ assists lawyers, bar organizations and others who advocate for the legal rights of the aged and disabled. GANJI and NAELA-NJ have filed a joint brief, in which their counsel (Daniel J. Jurkovic, Esq. and Robert F. Brogan, Esq.) argue that the Appellate Division’s decision restricts the autonomy of the disabled, noting that, although he is not in need of a guardian, the firefighter’s disabled son might have to have a guardian appointed, merely to receive the PFRS survivor benefit check. GANJI/NAELA-NJ asks that the matter be remanded to the PFRS agency to promulgate regulations that allow these survivor benefits to be paid to a “sole benefit” trust.

NAELA assists lawyers, bar organizations and others who advocate for the legal rights of the aged and disabled. Its attorney, John W. Callinan, Esq., argues that the disabled have a right to maximize their entitlement to government benefits, that a first-party SNT is merely an extension of the firefighter’s disabled son, and that he should be permitted to have the PFRS benefits payable to a first-party SNT.

SNA is an organization that assists lawyers, bar organizations and others who advocate for the legal rights of those needing the protection of special needs trusts. Its counsel (Shirley B. Whitenack, Esq., Of Counsel and Ron M. Landsman, Esq., On the Brief) argues that the retired firefighter should be permitted to establish a first-party SNT, and that the PFRS benefits be paid to that trust.

I welcome the significant insight and expertise that the amicus curiae bring to this case, which is expected to be argued before the Supreme Court this winter.