 
|
Death of Spouse
Learn more about Death of Spouse.
What happens with SBP benefits at the death of a spouseMost court clerks are dedicated and sometimes overworked; they have several different tasks for which they are responsible. While they have some procedural training, they are virtually never lawyers, and cannot be expected to be familiar with the statutory or case law, nevertheless technical terminology or matters of legal theory. Usually, they do not read any of the moving papers. It is therefore not surprising that their notes often misapprehend what is being asked, argued, and ordered; it would be much more amazing if they did capture all proceedings under such circumstances. Primary physical custody arrangements may encompass a wide array of -circumstances, As discussed above, if a parent has physical custody less than 40 percent of the time, then that parent has visitation rights and the other parent has primary physical custody. Likewise, a primary physical custody arrangement could also encompass a situation where one party has primary physical custody and the other party has limited or no visitation. See Metz, 120 Nev. at 788-89, 101 P.3d at 781 (describing a primary physical custody situation where the nonprimary physical custodian had visitation every other weekend). It can hardly be adequately stressed that the Convention does not give rise to custody proceedings; as explained in greater detail below, it is concerned with return of children to their countries of habitual residence, which is where any custody proceedings should be held. To the degree that the order rendered by a court deciding a Hague Convention case provides physical "custody" of a child, it does so only long enough to allow a petitioner to reach and enter another State, and perhaps long enough to initiate appropriate custody proceedings there.10 The purpose behind the award is twofold: to place the parties in the condition in which they were prior to the wrongful removal (or retention), and to provide deterrence against future similar conduct by the wrongdoing party. See Text & Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. 10494, 10511 (1986); Roszkowski v. Roszkowska, 644 A.2d 1150, 1160 (N.J. Super. 1993) (provisions of ICARA relating to fees referred to as a "sanction"). Finally, and most crass, permitting the paralegal mills to continue cranking out hundreds or thousands of defective domestic relations complaints and orders is bad for business - except for the business of repairing the damage done. We are increasingly troubled by the trend of parties to leave divorce court with an agreement that settles property and alimony matters, only to immediately walk down the street to the federal courthouse and attempt to relitigate those issues. Such actions call into question the good faith of the parties and their counsel and raise thorny issues of comity and finality of judgments, to say nothing of attempting to make the bankruptcy court into some type of appellate divorce court. We do not think Congress intended this result when it enacted § 523(a)(5). While we recognize that certain marital debts and obligations are and should be dischargeable, we do not believe that § 523(a)(5) gives one spouse carte blanche to retain marital property at the other spouse’s expense.1 The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court noted the district court could have found these expenditures to be of a community nature, since they either contributed to the housing and other living expenses of the husband or constituted contributions to a community asset. The Court further noted that there was nothing in the record suggested an absolute entitlement on the part of the wife to any portion of those funds. The Court additionally noted that it was well established that the decision whether to award attorneys’ fees to either party lies within the sound discretion of the district court. The Court held that "the district court’s decision, based on the fact that each of the parties held substantial separate property, was clearly a proper exercise of its discretion." Id. at 259. Presumably, all the normal rules regarding arrearages still exist (including the illogical, and apparently accidental rule that arrearages in retired pay cannot be collected from retired pay). Those with arrearages in child support or alimony, however, could initiate a withholding order that includes a payment toward the arrearage. benefits are presently payable."1 In other words, the Court held that all forms of retirement benefits, whether or not vested, and whether or not matured, are community property subject to division.2 In 1986, the California Supreme Court had held in Casas9 that the USFSPA direct payment limitation on State courts was strictly procedural. At least one California case went further, declaring that where the original divorce decree predated McCarty (i.e., June 26, 1981), the existence of a disability is simply irrelevant to the divorce court’s equal division of retirement (and disability) benefits.10 The 1989 United States Supreme Court decision in Mansell,11 discussed in detail above, made all such prior authority questionable. PAN style="FONT-FAMILY: TimesNewRoman"> Bankruptcy poses many problems in this area. When a member chooses to try to defeat the divorce court’s order in bankruptcy court, the only guarantee is greater expenses for both parties and further litigation. The husband filed a complaint for divorce. The wife never filed a counterclaim. The district court ruled that wife could not ask questions about alimony at trial because it had not been requested. The Supreme Court held because there was no attempt to place alimony before the court, the wife was properly barred from seeking it at trial. This is not to say that the case law has uniformly favored former spouses. Where counsel for the former spouse was not sufficiently careful in drafting the language of the decree, where the funds paid to the former spouse were not a portion of the retired pay but a sum meant to compensate the former spouse for her interest therein, and where no argument could be successfully made that the funds were necessary for the support of the former spouse, the former spouse’s interest has sometimes been found to be dischargeable. See In re Neely, 59 Bankr. Rep. 189 (B. Ct., D. S.D. 1986); In the Matter of Heck, 53 Bankr. Rep. 402 (B. Ct., S.D. Ohio 1985) (non-military case). The Court has said little about the subject in the past 20 years, merely re-affirming its Ford holding in Malmquist v. Malmquist, 106 Nev. 231, 792 P.2d 372 (1990), where it repeated the holding stated above. The true breakthrough came with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.3 Two programs were passed in tandem. First, CRSC was expanded to include all combat-related disabilities or operations-related disabilities,4 from 10% to 100% ratings, effective January 1, 2004, and extended to Guard and Reserve members. CRSC payments are explicitly defined as not being "retired pay."5 SPAN> Bush v. State, Dep’t of Human Resources, 112 Nev. 1298, 929 P.2d 940 (1996) The district court terminated parental rights of parents who had IQs of 65 and 71, whose two children were also "mentally challenged." The lower court found grounds for termination on the grounds of parental unsuitability and failure of parental adjustment. They were unable, even when willing, to "assimilate and practice the lessons being taught." The Court affirmed and found statutory grounds under NRS 128.105 and 128.106 were supported by the evidence. Despite six years of efforts by social workers, parents were "unable to meet the immediate and continuing needs of the children." Finding the five years that the children had been in foster care "dismaying," the Court stated that "the parents’ right to retain their children is an important consideration in the analysis" but found that "the rights of the children to a stable future with a loving family must be paramount" and therefore affirmed the termination. If the parents are using the Parenting Time Guidelines without extending the weeknight period into an overnight, the noncustodial parent will be exercising approximately 98 overnights. SUP> The Assembly, however, added a provision indicating that the legislation would only affect cases filed on or after the date of enactment. The "interested parties" turned their efforts to trying to eliminate that provision of the bill,6 with Ms. Cooney stating that the time-rule was adopted from California, but that it "in reality is not well-suited to Nevada."7 In the public sector, however, 1995 came and went without the mandatory calculation of penalties - or the long-awaited calculation and collection of interest - being performed by the Clark County D.A., or apparently anywhere else in Nevada.6 Meanwhile, the Attorney General’s Office, in conjunction with the Welfare Division, began a process of unifying procedures relating to support collection (and other things) in the 1990s. Reportedly, millions of dollars were expended in efforts to get the outdated NOMADS system to correctly perform interest and penalty calculations. The Court may have concerns with 42 U.S.C. § 11604(b), which provides that a court may not order a child to be removed from a person having physical control of the child "unless the applicable requirements of state law are satisfied." In other words, the question is whether state law permits an ex parte temporary child custody order pending further hearing and final disposition of the petition. When the dispute between the former spouse and plan reached the Third Circuit, it found that there is no requirement in ERISA that a plan be notified of the spousal interest prior to the employee’s death, in order for the spouse to seek a qualified order. Agreeing with the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Tise, the court held that a QDRO is merely a mechanism for enforcement of an interest determined in the first instance by a state domestic relations court.1 Regardless of whether the plan received notice of that separate interest before or after the date the participant died, the former spouse was entitled to seek enforcement of a separate interest in a pension benefit that existed before the participant’s death. Where a defendant has not made an appearance in an action, a default judgment (for temporary or permanent orders) may only be obtained upon affidavit stating that the person against whom default is requested is notin the military.5 If it appears that a person against whom default is sought isa member of the armed services, default may not be entered against the member until the court appoints an attorney for the member, who is then charged with the duty to "not waive any defense" until the member is located.6 The powers and procedures of courts to interpret divorce court orders, when expectations embedded in the orders prove inaccurate, varies from one jurisdiction to another. The problem is often seen in court orders issued during active duty that projected a date certain for payments to start to the former spouse, or made reference to "twenty years of service," etc. The standard form clauses contain language permitting the resolution of such problems. If a non-alimony resolution is desired, or necessary, it is difficult in most cases to come up with sufficient security for such a lifetime stream of payments. This is a problem in jurisdictions which have formal or informal barriers to establishment of alimony awards. And, of course, all the risks associated with bankruptcy are a factor when the spouse exchanges a pension share for anything else, though these risks may be somewhat mitigated by enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005,6 which provided that all "domestic support obligations" have priority before all but administrative expenses.7 Accordingly, it is to the permissibility of ordering the requested "provisional remedy" (the requested pick-up order) under _________ law that we next turn. The Supreme Court held the principles of res judicata barred the mother from reasserting an action to determine paternity or compel support, but that the child was not so barred. In addition, the child or the State may seek to modify the provisions of a compromise agreement intended to provide the child with support to the extent that the judgment or order is being enforced in this state, and the state of Nevada may provide that all such orders are modifiable. The Court also held that nothing in Nevada’s Parentage Act barred the child or an appropriate public agency in another state from seeking to compel additional support in a later action instituted in another state. The Court further held that the provisions of 125B mandating periodic review of orders for the support of a child apply to the provisions of a compromise agreement entered into pursuant to NRS 126.141(1) (b). Paragraph 1(b) also prohibits the court from basing its determination on any "estimated increase" in value resulting from a promotion or raise as a result of continued employment after the divorce. Of course, the time rule does not "estimate" anything, but simply accords an ever-smaller slice of an ever-enlarging pie to the former spouse, in precise math. In the second case, the fee dispute paperwork was submitted in October of 2008. After the hearing was rescheduled a half dozen times due to the former client¡¯s delays, it was finally decided on the papers (as we had requested be done repeatedly, for months) around December 9 ¨C four months ago. Again, utter silence since the submission. While a 6-3 split is hardly unprecedented, Court-watchers found the particular line-up of Justices remarkable for how it cut across traditional ideological affiliations. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, and joined by Justices Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Alito, and Sotomayor. The dissent was written by Justice Stevens, and joined by Justices Thomas and Breyer. If anything, that is a cheerful departure from the "conservative versus liberal" camps that many believe the Justices occupy. And it’s nice when a Family Law case is thought to be of sufficient importance to command the time and attention of the highest court in the land. Periodically, the unhappiness of CCLS with the continuing failure of the D.A. to collect interest and penalties on back child support was raised in communications, leading to several meetings over the years between the CCLS Board of Directors and a variety of representatives from the Welfare Division, District Attorney’s Office, and Attorney General’s Office. Like the Pro Bono Project before it, CCLS was consistently told that the problem was the NOMADS computer system, which just could not be made to do the calculations in the way that they obviously should be done. Most court clerks are dedicated and sometimes overworked; they have several different tasks for which they are responsible. While they have some procedural training, they are virtually never lawyers, and cannot be expected to be familiar with the statutory or case law, nevertheless technical terminology or matters of legal theory. Usually, they do not read any of the moving papers. It is therefore not surprising that their notes often misapprehend what is being asked, argued, and ordered; it would be much more amazing if they did capture all proceedings under such circumstances. The parties were married August 1973. When the parties were married, the wife was working as s a legal secretary and the husband was working as a district attorney. The wife quit full-time employment in 1975, and remained at home for several years before returning to part-time work in 1977 as a secretary for the lieutenant governor. In 1986, the wife began working for the Western Nevada Development District (WNDD) part-time. In 1989, the wife began working full-time there as an administrative assistant. At the time of trial, she was making an annual salary of $16,600. The husband became the district judge for the First Judicial District Court. He was appointed in 1977, was reelected several times. The wife filed for divorce February 1989. Trial was held June 1989. One of the main contested issues was the wife’s share of the pension. The district court determined that the wife was entitled to $1,015 per month, payable in eight years when the husband reached the minimum retirement age. The district court first divided the number of years the parties were married (15.77), by the number of years (25.9) the husband contributed to the Public Employees Retirement System. This figure (15.77/25.9), was deemed the community share of the pension. The district court then determined that the husband’s pension would be $3,384 per month, were he to retire then. The court then took 60% of that number and labeled it the community’s interest in the pension, $2,030 per month and the wife was then awarded one-half of that, or $1,015 per month. The court retained jurisdiction over the pension distribution in case future events revealed the division to be inequitable. You can find Death of Spouse Legal Authority For Use in Requesting an Emergency Pick up Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Four The Marren and Page Case List Smith v County of San Diego and Vix v State o Division of Military Retirement Benefits in Divorce Las Vegas retirement law expert The Marren and Page Case List Hedlund v Hedlund Any Reimbursment to Separate Property for Monies Expended and Mandatory Dis The Marren and Page Case List Harris v Harris Libro v Walls and Love v Love Las Vegas CSRS expert lawyer The Marren and Page Case List Cooley v Cooley Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section V Subsection G D Disability Benefits Death of Spouse available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Reciprocal Links: Death of Spouse Death of Spouse Death of Spouse Death of Spouse Death of Spouse Death of Spouse web search engine optimization |
|
|