Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP The TSP honors any court orders and post decree orders that relate to the TSP account of the participant Applying the law to the facts, the Court concluded that the husband would have the burden of showing that the estate was acquired by gift, devise or bequest or that the property was acquired with his separate property or credit citing to NRS 123.130 and NRS 123.220, and Kelly v. Kelly, 86 Nev. 301, 468 P.2d 359 (1970). The Court found that there was no evidence that the life estate was acquired by gift, or that if it was acquired through the husband’s separate property or credit. The Court concluded that the property could not be transmuted from a "trust" for the children to community property at the demand of the grantor. The estate was a valuable estate in land. The estate had to be valued and divided.  65279;There are multiple roles that alimony might play in disability cases, depending on the order in which events occur. Some courts faced with a post-divorce recharacterization of retirement benefits as disability benefits have simply redistributed other property, or compensated the former spouse by an award of post-divorce alimony. And judges should consciously consider their jurisdiction to proceed before wading into the merits of cases, with sufficient knowledge of the jurisdictional rules both to understand what they should not do, and to ignore legally fatuous arguments based on indefensible attacks on their legitimate jurisdiction. If the agreed facts resolve a jurisdictional question, one way or another, the merits can be addressed; if not, the court should focus on convening such proceedings as are necessary to make the factual determinations that permit the jurisdictional call to be made promptly, economically, and correctly. Accordingly, the USFSPA included special jurisdictional rules that must be satisfied in military cases to get an enforceable order for division of the benefits as property. In other public and private plans, any state court judgment valid under the laws of the state where it was entered is generally enforceable to divide retirement benefits; this is not true for orders dividing military retirement benefits as property. The rules do not restrict alimony or child support orders, which will be honored if the state court had personal and subject matter jurisdiction under its own law. NRS 125.155(2)(b) actually does something - it explicitly permits a court to order private life insurance to make up for the lack of any "pre-retirement survivor annuity" in the PERS system.2 1) The basic child support obligation is multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at a shared parenting basic child support obligation. The shared parenting basic child support obligation is apportioned to each parent according to his or her income. In turn, a child support obligation is computed for each parent by multiplying that parent's portion of the shared parenting child support obligation by the percentage of time the child spends with the other parent. The respective basic child support obligations are then offset, with the parent owing more basic child support paying the difference between the two amounts. The transfer for the basic obligation for the parent owing less basic child support shall be set at zero dollars. does not have an exchange value or any objective transferable value on an open market. It is personal to the holder. It terminates on the death of the holder and is not inheritable. It cannot be assigned, sold, transferred, conveyed or pledged. An advanced degree is a cumulative product of many years of previous education, combined with diligence and hard work. It may not be acquired by the mere expenditure of money. It is simply an intellectual achievement that may potentially assist in the future acquisition of property .... unconstitutional impairment of contracts with the United States (by which the members contended that they alone were to receive the entirety of their retirement benefits), and that spousal awards under the USFSPA were due process violations. a. Enforceable orders would be immediately available. This will ameliorate a host of current problems, from police enforcement to school registration. As with custody cases, the requirement of changed circumstances in child support cases prevents parties "[from filing] immediate, repetitive, serial motions until the right circumstances or the right judge allows them to achieve a different result, based on essentially the same facts." Ellis, 123 Nev. at 151, 161 P.3d at 243 (internal quotations omitted). Therefore, a court cannot modify a child support order if the predicate facts upon which the court issued the order are substantially unchanged. Mosley v. Figliuzzi, 113 Nev. 51, 58-59, 930 P.2d 1110, 1114-15 (1997) (discussing custody orders). Also, the modification must be in the best interest of the child. NRS 125B.145(2)(b). The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court noted the district court had broad discretion to accept or reject the master’s report. The Court concluded that both Pereira and VanCamp had vitality and could be applied as circumstances warranted. The Court noted that the Van Camp method was inherently fair, and held that the district court’s application of the Van Camp method was substantially supported by the evidence. The case also gave tacit recognition to the proper methodology for conducting a Pereira calculation. The separate property portion is allocated a fair return. This fair return is the multiplied against the separate property portion. This number is then multiplied against the years of the marriage. It is a well-established principle of community property law that the labor and skills of a spouse are considered to be a community asset, and that income generated during the marriage from such labor and skills is also community property.8 7. The court may deviate from the child support amount calculated pursuant to subparagraph 6. based upon the deviation factors in paragraph (a), as well as the obligee parent's low income and ability to maintain the basic necessities of the home for the child, the likelihood that either parent will actually exercise the time-sharing schedule set forth in the parenting plan granted by the court, and whether all of the children are exercising the same time-sharing schedule. Nevertheless, the Nevada child support guidelines were derived from the Wisconsin Guidelines: making Nevada one of half a dozen "percentage of income" guideline States." This l See 1985 Report at 36. 2 See family Support Act of 1988, Pub. Law No. 100-485, 102 Stat. 2343 (October 13. 1988). The law essentially required every State to adopt some SOli of child support guideline. J See Dodson, A Guide to the Guidelines, Family Advocate 4, 6 Spring 1988 (reprinted in 1989 legislative history of A.B. 85 at 1064). 4 See 1989 Legislative History of A.B. 85 at 222-246. They say that a dog is "Man’s Best Friend." But what happens when "Fluffy" was obtained during the course of a marriage that has ultimately (ahem) "gone to the dogs." As family law attorneys, we have all been faced with clients willing to give up their entire nest egg to keep "Fluffy" from their evil soon to be ex-spouse. If the Court is reluctant to adopt a specific percentage of time as the threshold to consideration of joint physical custody as a possible custody award, it is requested that the Court give clear guidance that if joint physical custody is to be considered an option in a less than equal time share, the time share must be close to equal. Without this clarification, the definition becomes meaningless, leaving the parties to argue over and the trial court to figure out what constitutes"significant periods of time." The parties had been negotiating a settlement agreement concerning their property, support obligations, and custody. An agreement was reached and the parties signed. The parties then reconciled and then split up again. Following a trial, the parties were divorced.  The wife appealed, in part, the district court’s refusal to award attorney’s fees.  In family court, this led to the evolution of what became known as the "midstream recusal policy," for use where there was a clear record of extreme hostility between a judge and a lawyer. Whenever the lawyer was working on a case prior to its assignment to the judge, the department recused; when a case had been assigned to the judge prior to the lawyer being hired, the lawyer refused to take the case and referred the would-be client elsewhere. a) During the pendency of the action, at the final hearing or at any time thereafter during the minority of any of the children of the marriage, make such an order for the custody, care, education, maintenance and support of the minor children as appears in their best interest . . . . The disconnect, and this discussion, is fully applicable to the military context, where (as discussed below) practitioners now are required to deal not only with the standard military retirement (a defined benefit plan), but also with the Thrift Savings Plan (a defined contribution plan). Third, taxpayer resources would be thrown away by repeating the very same appointment process again, less than three months after appointment, and before any meaningful review of the appointee’s ability and performance in the position could possibly be made. As a practical matter, can there be any doubt that after the waste of significant amounts of time, effort, and money, exactly the same person would be appointed to exactly the same position? The Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted that record failed to show how the community contributed to the purchase price. The Court further noted that if there been a mortgage on the house, and the wife had been able to prove that the principal on that mortgage was reduced by payments made with community funds, then she could have taken the position that the  community acquired a pro tanto interest in the residence. As to improvements the Court noted that the record failed to provide substantial evidence that the improvements were made from community funds rather than from the husband’s separate funds. Second, there was no evidence in the record that these improvements increased the value of the house. The record appeared to indicate that the expenditures were for routine maintenance. The Court held that there was no substantial evidence in the record to support the ruling. As to the car, the Court noted that the mere oral expression by a spouse that a car purchased during the marriage is a "gift" to the other spouse does not attain the level of clear and certain proof necessary to overcome the presumption of community property citing to Milisich v. Hillhouse, 48 Nev. 166, 228 P. 307 (1924). The Court also noted that the opinion of either spouse is of no weight in determining whether property is community or separate citing to Bank v. Milisich, 52 Nev. 178, 283 P. 913 (1930). The Court held that district court’s finding that the presumption of community was overcome by clear and certain proof was unsupported by substantial evidence and had to be reversed. II) the amount of disposable retired pay which remains available for payment of any confiding court order based on when such court order was effectively served and the Imitations of paragraph (1 )and subparagraph (b) of paragraph (4); and At its heart, this case asks how we should interpret the parties' stipulated divorce decree. Historically, this court defers to a trial court's interpretation of its own decrees. "It is the province of the trial court to construe its judgments and decrees." Grenz v. Grenz, 78 Nev. 394, 401, 374 P.2d 891,895 (1962). Further, "[w]here a judgment is susceptible of two interpretations, that one will be adopted which renders it the more reasonable, effective and conclusive, and which makes the judgment harmonize with the facts and law of the case and be such as ought to have been rendered." Aseltine v. District Court, 57 Nev. 269, 273, 62 P.2d 701, 702 (1936) (internal quotation omitted). 6) The term "spouse or former spouse" means the husband or wife, or former husband or wife, respectively of a member who, on or before the date of a court order, was married to that member. Applying the law to the facts, the Court concluded that the husband would have the burden of showing that the estate was acquired by gift, devise or bequest or that the property was acquired with his separate property or credit citing to NRS 123.130 and NRS 123.220, and Kelly v. Kelly, 86 Nev. 301, 468 P.2d 359 (1970). The Court found that there was no evidence that the life estate was acquired by gift, or that if it was acquired through the husband’s separate property or credit. The Court concluded that the property could not be transmuted from a "trust" for the children to community property at the demand of the grantor. The estate was a valuable estate in land. The estate had to be valued and divided.  UP> At any time, a military retiree can apply to the Veteran’s Administration to be evaluated for a "service-connected disability."1 If the evaluation shows such a disability, a rating is given between 10% and 100%, and "compensation" is paid monthly from the VA in accordance with a schedule giving a dollar sum corresponding to each 10% increase, plus certain additional awards for certain serious disabilities.2 Still further waivers of retired pay for VA disability pay can be given if the retiree has dependents (a spouse or children, or even dependent parents).3 It makes sense for a retiree to obtain a disability award, even with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in retired pay, because the disability awards are received tax-free.4 1) Combine the adjusted gross incomes of the parents and determine the base combined child support obligation using the base combined child support obligation table. The Supreme Court affirmed the authority of district court to schedule the liquidation of arrears in any manner deemed proper under the circumstances citing to Reed v. Reed, 88 Nev. 329, 497 P.2d 896 (1972). B> Fox v. Fox1 was the second of three appeals between the same divorcing couple. In that round, the Court noted that the term of office of the judge who presided at the hearings below had expired before the judgment could be entered. The Court set it aside, and remanded for formal entry of the amended decree, but specified: It’s a job I know pretty well; I had the job of a Central Staff Attorney as my first out of law school. But the game has changed, somewhat, since the early 1980s - the Central Staff is much larger than it used to be, and part of the Court’s adaptation to its increased size, huge case load, and lack of an intermediate appellate court has been to rely ever more heavily on Central Staff for substantive expertise in discrete practice areas. You can find Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP Rivero v Rivero Opinion Section V Schwartz and alimony An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section I Subsection A Nevada OPM expert Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Four D The Marren and Page Case List Chambers ex rel Cochran v Sanderson and Herma Termination of Parental Rights The Marren and Page Case List Schwartz v Schwartz Jones v Jones Trent v Tre Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar QDRO checkup The Marren and Page Case List Applebaum v Applebaum Conclusions as to Disability Awards The Marren and Page Case List Gorden v Gorden and Campbell v Campbell Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Three B Las Vegas divorce law advocate child support expert The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Bush v State Department of Human Resources Rivero v Rivero Opinion Section VI B Reciprocal Links: Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP

Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP Court Ordered Divisions of the TSP