 
|
Disability Benefits and Concurrent Receipt
Learn more about Disability Benefits and Concurrent Receipt.
Award of disability benefits after a divorceIt may not be that simple, however, as the member can elect between CRDP and CRSC annually, and which would actually provide more money in a given year can vary throughout the phase-in of CRDP. From the spouse’s point of view, the money may just "stop" one or SPAN> In the Matter of Parental Rights as to Bow, 113 Nev. 141, 930 P.2d 1128 (1997) The Court referred to In the Matter of Parental Rights as to Cory Arvin Weinper, 112 Nev. 710, 918 P.2d 325 (1996), and court noted that parents against whom a termination is brought are entitled to (1) a clear and definite statement of the allegations of the petition; (2) notice of hearing and the opportunity to be heard or defend; and (3) the right to counsel. Since the parent in this case had counsel at the final termination proceeding, the court found her due process right to counsel was not violated. The problem with reading the statute to mean exactly what it says is that any such interpretation would be in direct conflict with the Nevada Supreme Court’s mandates in Gemma/Fondi/Sertic that the member must make direct payments to the former spouse upon eligibility for retirement, whether or not the member retires. The law on this point is so clear that, today, it would probably be malpractice to not provide for payments to the former spouse upon the employee’s eligibility for retirement. We vary from the "plan-by-plan" type of presentation to address the subject of death benefits, and disability benefits, which are addressed as two topics across all affected retirement plans, so that the variations among and between them can be compared and contrasted. The parties divorced March 1924. The decree provided that the mother was to receive custody and that the father was to pay support of $1,200 per year in equal monthly installments per child. The father was to have visitation over the summer, one-half of all other times the children were not in school, and every other weekend. In February 1927, the father filed a motion asking the court to construe the decree as to whether he could deduct the cost of schooling from the support he was paying, and whether he could deduct the amount of expenses he actually paid for the children while they were in his custody. The motion also requested that if the court did not construe the decree as requested that his support obligation be modified so that he could deduct education expenses and expenses when the children were with him. The district court denied the father’s request as to education, but indicated that if the children lived with the father for six months, then the mother should be paying support for that time. The mother contended that the court was without jurisdiction to reduce the amount the father was paying. B> Casas v. Thompson was a clear restatement of the law regarding military retirement benefits division as it had evolved in California prior to 1988, which was followed by several other states. It was a partition case ten years after entry of a divorce decree that had not mentioned the retirement. Ultimately, the spouse was granted partition of the omitted retirement from the date she filed her petition, but no arrears. The Court of Appeals affirmed with a few modifications not important here." 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 PRACTICE TIP: When money is owed for both retired pay and for child support, it is usually wise to get the retired pay as property started first (even if it means sending in two DD-2293 forms, a couple weeks apart). The reason to do so is that retired pay arrears cannot be garnished from future retired pay, but arrears in child support can - through the above-described Social Security garnishment order, a support obligee can get up to 65% of total retired pay, not just the 50% available under a DD-2293 direct payment procedure. So a practitioner taking the long-term approach should get the stream of property payments established quickly, and can always go back and slowly collect the support arrears by getting a garnishment order against an additional 15%. Note that, once established, such a garnishment order can remain in place for the long haul, even if the child emancipates, and the elimination of "current" support frees up in that 65% total that allows for payment of the arrears. All property, both real and personal, of a married person owned or claimed by such person before marriage, and that acquired afterward by gift, devise or descent, shall be the separate property of such person. The legislature shall more clearly define the rights of married persons in relation to their separate property and other property. D) If a prima facie case is made for deviation in either direction. determine whether the benefit that would be enjoyed by the deviation-seeking party and the child is greater, lesser, or the same as the detriment that would be suffered by the other pm1y and the child. Only where the benefit is greater than the detriment - usually measured by comparison of household income would the deviation be granted. Having clarified the circumstances under which a district court may modify a child support order, we note that this case is an example of the immediate and repetitive motions that can plague the district court, even after the parties have stipulated to child support. Less than two months after the district court entered the parties' divorce decree, in which they agreed that neither party would receive child support, Ms. Rivero moved the court for child support. Then she did so again, 11 months later. Such constant relitigation of a court order, especially one to which the parties stipulate, is pointless absent a change in the circumstances underlying the initial order. At the court-ordered mediation, the parties were unable to reach a timeshare agreement. Following mediation, after a hearing, the district court modified the custody arrangement from a five-day, two-day split to an equal timeshare. Ms. Rivero appeals. The Family Law Section of the State Bar of Nevada ("FLS") submits its Amicus Curiae Answer to Order to Show Cause in accordance with this Court's July 29, 2009, Order. In 1999, the Washington State Supreme Court decided In re Marriage of Jennings.5 The court found that a retiree who terminated a stream of payments to a former spouse by electing, post-divorce, to begin taking disability rather than retired pay created such "extraordinary circumstances" that the trial court should take the "justified remedial action" of awarding compensatory spousal support even four years after the divorce in order to "overcome a manifest injustice which was not contemplated by the parties at the time of the 1992 decree." The court noted the reduced stream of payments to the spouse, and held that: Ultimately, the matter was remanded to state court. Ironically, that court ruled that the previously-ordered flow of payments from the member to the spouse, put into place prior to the appellate Mansell decision, was res judicata and could not be terminated. In other words, the United States Supreme Court opinion had no effect on the order to divide the entirety of retirement and disability payments in the final, un-appealed divorce decree in the Mansell case itself. There are a great many options and elections that an employee can make that would "by election defeat the nonemployee spouse¡¯s interest in the community property." The question is whether the purpose of Gemma and Fondi will be enforced by prohibiting employee elections that devalue spousal interests. It appears that reconciling the conflict between an employee spouse¡¯s right to choose plan options and the substantive right to full collection by a non-employee spouse will require a further case. In the meantime, the safest course for counsel is to specify as much as possible regarding plan elections under at the time of divorce. B> The problems with the "Rivero Formula" noted in the Petition for Rehearing, in Ms. Decaria’s article, and in this Brief, caused Amicus to review the other Wisconsin-guideline States’ approaches to the problem of child support in joint custody cases. Those that have squarely examined it have reached the same result reached by this Court (total expenditures go up in a joint custody case) and have contrived a few different approaches to joint-but-unequal situations. We think none of them completely adequate, for the reasons set out below, and therefore suggest a different approach, tailored toward Nevada’s particular enactment, which includes our presumptive maximum provision. Retirement benefits are essentially a form of deferred reward for service, and so are generally divisible upon divorce, while disability benefits are conceptualized as compensation for future lost wages and opportunities because of disabilities suffered, and are thus typically not divisible or attachable. When accepting a disability award requires relinquishing a retirement benefit, the interests of the parties as to the proper characterization of the benefits become instantly polarized.1 In November 1921, the wife filed for divorce and requested sole custody of their child and for support. In February 1922, the husband bequeathed all of his property to a third person, with the express condition that she pay to his daughter, $50 per month until the daughter should emancipate. The father also bequeathed his automobile to his daughter with the condition that should she or her guardian attempt to break the will she was to receive only $5. In June 1922, the husband died. The mother then filed a petition requesting that $1,817 in insurance proceeds be collected by the executrix and be declared exempt and set apart for the daughter’s use. The district court ordered that the money be set aside for the daughter. The executrix appealed. The daughter was living with the father at the time of death. The question for the Court was the daughter a member of the father’s family. Noting that the agreement was entered into 25 years post-divorce, the court found that settlement of Andrew's attempt to terminate the payment stream violated the "plain language" of the rule since it was "partially contingent upon a modified amount of alimony." The court found that "domestic relations matters" can be the subject of litigation post-divorce, and that alimony and the division of community property are "domestic relations concepts." And, of course, divorce jurisdiction does not answer all questions, since family law cases and issues can arise in a variety of pre-divorce, post-divorce, or entirely non-marital, actions. In all such matters, and with increased precision and certitude in the recent age of uniform laws, the governing statutes control when a court may, or may not, act. The husband was obligated in the property settlement agreement to pay child support. The agreement was expressly nonmodifiable. Afterwards, a daughter moved in with the father. The father unilaterally reduced child support 25 percent. The mother filed a breach of contract action. The district court found the father in breach and awarded damages. The Supreme Court noted that because the matter was brought under a property settlement agreement, it was a breach of contract action. The Court affirmed the district court’s ruling noting that the agreement did not provide for modification, made no provision for change of circumstances, and no authority which permitted him to peremptorily cease paying the mother. Specific factual findings are crucial to enforce or modify a custody order and for appellate review. Accordingly, on remand, the district court must evaluate the true nature of the custodial arrangement, pursuant to the definition of joint physical custody described above, by evaluating the arrangement the parties are exercising in practice, regardless of any contrary language in the divorce decree. The district court shall then apply the appropriate test for determining whether to modify the custody arrangement and make express findings supporting its determination. Here, however, Judy wanted to and did negotiate for a lump sum, which necessarily terminated the payment stream she had been receiving labeled "alimony." The court found that a contingency fee agreement to pay counsel was therefore simply prohibited, under various cases and ethics opinions. Without questioning - or even reciting - the public policies implicated, the court casually noted that the rule "does raise some concerns with respect to certain individuals' ability to retain an attorney in domestic relations cases." The court also noted, without comment, that the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 35 (2000) provides that contingency fees are prohibited only when they are contingent on a specific result in a divorce proceeding or concerning custody of a child. It may not be that simple, however, as the member can elect between CRDP and CRSC annually, and which would actually provide more money in a given year can vary throughout the phase-in of CRDP. From the spouse’s point of view, the money may just "stop" one or The matter of "deemed elections" and former spouse eligibility for SBP payments presents the single biggest malpractice trap in this area, at least when it is attempted without the member’s cooperation. Arriving at a "hard number" for the value of military retirement benefits is not, however, that simple. There are three different non-disability benefit formulas within the military retirement system. The first group is composed of members who entered service before September 8, 1980, the second consists of those who entered between that date and July 31, 1986, and the third is for those who entered service on or after August 1, 1986. And, effective April 1, 2007, Congress altered the longevity possibilities of all three groups. 4) If the parenting time is equal but the parents adjusted gross incomes are not equal, the parent having the greater adjusted gross income shall be Obligated for the amount of basic child support needed to equalize the basic child support to each parent, calculated as follows: While this point is important in cases involving joint physical custody, it is equally important in other cases as well. If the Supreme Court adopts the definitions of other forms of custody, as asked for by the FLS in its original Brief and reasserted below, this issue becomes all the more important, as some of the requested terminology is based upon law from other jurisdictions. Extraordinary visitation as a deviation factor arises in two different scenarios under the guidelines. First, the guidelines may provide that shared custodY, the particular custodial arrangements, or extraordinary visitation are all deviation factors. E.g., Gray v. Gray, 885 s.w .2d 353 (Tenn. Ct. APP. 1994) (guidelines do not apply in cases of shared custody, split custodY, and extended visitation; determination of proper support in those cases should be made on case by case basis). Second, the guidelines might provide that "shared custodY" comes into play when the non-custodial parent reaches a particular threshold amount of visitation, usually somewhere above 30%. In this latter scenario, visitation above the presumed 20% amount under the guidelines, but beloW the threshold amount for shared custody, is extraordinary visitation, and such extraordinary visitation may necessitate deviation. In both these cases, the court must decide whether to deviate from the presumed guideline amount because of the amount of time the children spend with the non-custodial parent. E.g., Laliberte v. Laliberte, 105 Ohio APP· 3d 207, 663 N.E.2d 974 (1995). At the time of their marriage, the parties each owned real property. During the marriage, the parties lived in the wife’s home. Mortgage payments were made on that property throughout the marriage. The primary source of these payments was apparently the proceeds from a craft business operated by the wife. The business had been purchased after the marriage with joint funds. The husband letter began constructing a residence on his separate property lot, performing most of the work himself. The funds came from money withdrawn from a community savings account and the sale of his prior separate property residence. The district court made a finding that both parties’ separate property had been improved with community assets. The court found the community interest in the lot on which the husband’s residence was built included the value of the husband’s labor, and the value of the building materials used. No community property interest was found in the wife’s residence. The district court also found that the craft business had been transmuted from community property to separate property by the division of the bank accounts. The parties held a deed to property in joint tenancy. The district court found that the lot was community property and ordered it sold at fair market value with the proceeds divided equally between the parties. The husband never objected to the characterization of the lot as being community property. The July, 1995, Chair’s Column in the Nevada Family Law Report pretty concisely stated the position of the Section leadership on the process and result of enacting NRS 125.155: First, their retirement benefits multiplier was reduced by one percentage point for each full year less than 30 years of service.1 Under this plan, at age 62, the reduction is removed and the retired pay multiplier is restored to 2.5% per year, yielding the same percentage payable under the earlier system. The father had four children; two by one relationship, two by another. The father wanted the district court to apply formula of 31 percent for four children and then divide 31 percent by four to get his "per child rate of support." The father’s request was denied. You can find Disability Benefits and Concurrent Receipt The Marren and Page Case List Plunkett v Plunkett PERS expert lawyer Introduction to Nevada Law of Child Custody and Visitation in Divorce Coping with COLAs The Analogous Cases Involving Early Outs Withdrawal and Borrowing of Money from the TSP During Service family law jurisdiction Nevada QDRO lawyer Legal Separation Allowed Part Two of Two Fees incurred on appeal can be awarded The Marren and Page Case List Kerley v Kerley and Sprenger v Sprenger Las Vegas public employees retirement lawyer Major Military Divorce Cases Disability Benefits and Concurrent Receipt available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section I Dealing with Checklist for Military Retirement Benefits Cases Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section V Subsection B The Marren and Page Case List State of Montana v Lopez The Marren and Page Case List Johnson v Johnson Pereira v Pereira Van Camp Death of Member Before Retirement and Before Divorce |