 
|
Death of Member Before Retirement and Before Divorce
Learn more about Death of Member Before Retirement and Before Divorce.
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation is a program for spouses of active duty members who die before the divorce is finalP> As discussed above, NRS 286.6703(3)(e) was intended to prohibit PERS itself from being forced to make any payment to an alternate payee prior to the actual retirement of the member, but it is not phrased as prohibiting merely payments "from the system," like the subsection above it. Rather, its language was apparently modeled - and apparently by accident - on certain language from ERISA, phrased in such a way that, on its face, any order requiring "the payment of any allowance or benefit to an alternate payee before the retirement of the member" would make the order invalid. In March 1973, the husband filed for divorce. The wife filed an answer and counterclaim alleging that the parties had acquired community property. The husband, in his reply, admitted that allegation and only denied the amount of the balance of the savings and checking accounts. In August 1973, the husband died. The son filed a probate proceeding to determine the status of certain real and personal property seeking to have the property declared to be community property and subject to administration. The district court held that the joint tenancy deeds conveying all the real property involved to the husband and wife as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common, with full rights of survivorship, did not without other clear and certain independent evidence overcome the presumption that such property purchased with community funds was community property. But the Supreme Courts order finding that Nevada had subject matter jurisdiction as the childrens home state under the UCCJEA is likely to cause future grief and confusion. Some members retired before 1972 are nevertheless participants in the SBP, since Congress has provided a number of "open enrollment periods" or "open seasons" during which non-participants could join the program, and those who had selected less than the full amount of benefits could increase their level of participation. Those choosing to begin or increase their participation in the SBP program during an open season are also faced with paying an additional retroactive premium. The Court then discussed the fact that the legislature amended what is now NRS 123.080(4) ) reading: "[i]f a contract executed by a husband and wife, or a copy thereof, be introduced in evidence as an exhibit in any divorce action, and the court shall by decree or judgment ratify or adopt or approve the contract by reference thereto, the decree or judgment shall have the same force and effect and legal consequences as though the contract were copied into the decree, or attached thereto." The Court concluded that the legislature intended to eliminate the distinction between a ratification or approval of an agreement by the court, and its adoption of it. and that it provided for the merger of an agreement which had been either ratified, or adopted, or approved by the court, into the decree entered. The Court interpreted the language "as though the contract were copied into the decree, or attached thereto," to mean a merger. The Court then indicated that the statute did not govern the disposition of the case. The Court noted that the parties specifically provided by their agreement that it "shall not be merged in any decree or judgment, but shall survive the same and shall be binding and conclusive on the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for all time" and they provided that the agreement could not be altered or modified except by a further written agreement. The decree also directed that the agreement survive. The Court held under such circumstances, it would be manifestly improper to invoke the concept of merger. The Court held that NRS 123.080(4) did not apply to a decree directing survival of an approved agreement; that the installment payment provisions of the agreement survive such decree; that the post-divorce level of support was controlled by the agreement; that the decree did not constitute an installment judgment for alimony and support within NRS 125.170; and that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief requested. Id. at 232. 3. "The new firm should take . . . reasonable steps to ensure that the nonlawyer [employee] does not work in connection with matters on which [he or] she worked during the prior employment, absent client consent [i.e., unconditional waiver] after consultation." 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). Harms could be interpreted as standing for the proposition that a member can divest a spouse by arranging to have a divorce decree entered while out of the country, and ensuring that he remains outside the personal jurisdiction of any State that has procedures for dividing omitted marital property. From the spouses perspective, the case highlights the danger of not being sure there is an enforceable order in place at the time of divorce. The case dealt with NRS 125B.050 repealing the six year statute of limitations regarding collection of child support arrears applying prospectively, not retroactively. The parties were divorced August 27, 1974. The father was ordered to pay support of $300 per month for the parties child and was ordered to pay medical and educational expenses. In July 1977, the father stopped making support payments and in May 1991, the mother filed an action to collect arrears going back to 1977. The referee found that the mother did not waive her right to collect arrears and awarded her child support arrears with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, medical and schooling expenses with post-judgment interest and attorneys fees. The district court upheld the referees decision and awarded the mother $122,521. P> As discussed above, NRS 286.6703(3)(e) was intended to prohibit PERS itself from being forced to make any payment to an alternate payee prior to the actual retirement of the member, but it is not phrased as prohibiting merely payments "from the system," like the subsection above it. Rather, its language was apparently modeled - and apparently by accident - on certain language from ERISA, phrased in such a way that, on its face, any order requiring "the payment of any allowance or benefit to an alternate payee before the retirement of the member" would make the order invalid. Before the effective date of the 1990 amendments (February 4, 1991), amounts deducted for payment to a former spouse were still considered wages of the retired member for withholding purposes.1 The member had income withheld on the entire gross amount, the resulting "disposable" pay was divided, and the member was entitled to a refund of taxes withheld on amounts paid to the former spouse. The former spouse then owed full taxes on whatever she received. Any percentage divisions of retirement benefits under the former law increased property distribution to the member and reduced them to the former spouse as a matter of course.1 The Court made a number of holdings. The Court held that whenever property nominally held in joint tenancy is determined to be community property the right of survivorship is destroyed and is brought within the laws of descent and distribution. Here, the fact that title to all the real property of the parties was in joint tenancy, clear and convincing proof was needed to overcome the presumption that it was not community property. The burden was on the party making the community property claim to show by clear and convincing evidence that the property which was held in joint tenancy had been transmuted into community property. The Court held that the fact that the property was purchased with community funds, standing alone, was insufficient to rebut the presumption created by the form of the deed. The Court also approvingly cited to Mullikin v. Jones, 71 Nev. 14, 278 P.2d 876 (1955) for the proposition that even though community funds, earnings and efforts were used to build up and increase the value of the joint tenancy property without further proof of an original intent or subsequent agreement to hold the property as community, would not prove a transmutation from joint tenancy. So if a $500 installment of child support remained totally unpaid for a month, a penalty of $4.17 ($500 x 10% 12) accrued, calculated on a monthly basis.4 If it still remained unpaid the next month, another such penalty accrued, and so forth. Throughout the 1990s, such penalty calculations were done by spreadsheet and submitted as exhibits to child support motions.5 To my knowledge, every judge who ever heard a child support motion where a penalty was so calculated approved the reasoning, methodology, and totals, over all objections that have ever been made. The wife, at the time of the marriage, quit the job she had been working for 17 years. After one year of marriage the wife returned to work because the husband was so "penurious" that she needed additional income for living expenses as well as to care for her aged mother. The work she found paid much less than before. The district court awarded the wife $4,000 in lieu of a division of property interests plus $100 per month alimony to the wife with a reservation of jurisdiction over the alimony by the district court. If this hypothetical employee had a standard longevity retirement (or any other standard defined benefit plan1) the above wage history would make his average monthly salary during his last three years service $4,014.21, and a normal retirement formula2 would make his retired pay $2,007.11. The method adopted by these "substantially equal" custody states is cumbersome, because two, not one, calculations must be made, for custody over the threshold adopted: a special formula for custody between the threshold and equal visitation, and a special formula for substantially equal custody. A less cumbersome methodology could be adopted by having one test for all custody over a particular threshold, and that is what is done by a number of states. The decree required the husband to pay alimony of $400 per month for ten years, followed by $200 per month for an additional ten years. The decree provided, however, that alimony would terminate if the wife remarried. The husband paid alimony until the wife remarried. The wife later discovered that her new husband had not divorced his first wife. She then had the marriage annulled and petitioned the district court to reinstate the alimony obligations and to award arrearages from the date on which the husband stopped making his payments. The district court denied wifes request for all of the arrearages, but the court reinstated alimony from the date of the wifes annulment. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted that under NRS 125.150(5) and the decree, alimony payments were to cease upon remarriage. The Court held that the term remarriage, as used in the decree and NRS 125.150(5), meant the solemnization or ceremony of remarriage, without regard to whether the remarriage is later determined to be void or voidable. This Order creates or recognizes the existence of an Alternate Payeefs right to, or assigns to an Alternate Payee the right to receive a portion of the benefits payable to a plan Participant. It also serves as authorization for the Public Employeesf Retirement System (the "System") to provide specific information concerning the account to the Alternate Payee at any time. In any event, for the short term, there remains the question of arrearages, consisting of sums of retired pay that retirees waived and personally collected in the form of disability pay to the exclusion of the former spouse. As to those cases, all of the above factors remain relevant. The legislation did not contain any authority for DFAS to issue retroactive payments. P> In 1987, the Illinois court dismissed the filed-but-never-completed Illinois divorce action. Jill filed a "registration petition" in 1990, trying to get the Illinois court to act on the reservation of rights in the German divorce decree. Counsel focused on the reservation clause, instead of seeking an Illinois judgment recognizing and enforcing the German settlement dividing the retirement. Six years later, Leibowitz involved a paralegal. The Court clarified Ciaffone by holding that mere potential "access" to privileged information is insufficient to cause disqualification. Rather, a court must find that the employee actually gained privileged and confidential information as a result of the former employment, in which case "imputed disqualification should apply whenever the nonlawyer accepts employment with a firm or attorney who represents a client with a materially adverse interest to the former client." 78 P.3d 520. In approximately 1916, the husband purchased a car. The sheriff, acting under a writ of attachment, attached an automobile in an action to recover a money judgment against the husband. The action was instituted to recover the possession of the car, upon the theory that it was the separate property of the wife. The wife testified that the husband gave her the car, and that she traded it in for another car paying the difference, and in 1920 traded in the second car for the car in question a difference of $1,700 in cash. The wife claimed that the major portion of the cash she used in paying the difference in these trades was savings from money her husband gave her with which to run the house. The district court held that the monies advanced by the husband for household expenses were not separate property. iii) pay to that member the amount which is equal to the amount of that member's disposable retired pay(less any amount paid during such month pursuant to legal process served under section 459 of the Social Security Act(42 U.S.C. 659)and any amount paid during such month pursuant to court orders effectively served under this section, other than such conflicting court orders) minus-- You can find Death of Member Before Retirement and Before Divorce Family Law and Contingency Fees Time to Reconsider Section I Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Three B Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Four Factors to Consider in Deciding Whether to File in Federal or State Court An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section V The Marren and Page Case List Aldabe v Aldabe Rivero v Rivero Opinion Pickerings Conclusion Cases and Trends An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section I Subsection A The Marren and Page Case List Johnson v Johnson Pereira v Pereira Van Camp Choosing Between A Spouse and A Former Spouse as the Proper Beneficiary of Legal Authority For Use in Requesting an Emergency Pick up The Marren and Page Case List Milender v Marcum The Marren and Page Case List Barrett v Franke Sly v Sly and Robison v Robi Death of Member Before Retirement and Before Divorce available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Nevada child custody expert lawyer Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection Initial Petition for Return Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Part Two A The Marren and Page Case List Johnson v Johnson Pereira v Pereira Van Camp Public Employees Retirement System PERS Benefits Section III Subsection C P |