 
|
Divorce Jurisdiction
It is requried that one party to an action be a bona fide resident of NevadaAccordingly, 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. nbsp;States that the stay does not apply to the establishment or modification of an order for alimony, maintenance, or support. This is reflected in the legislative history. "Subsection (b) specifies that the automatic stay does not apply to a proceeding that seeks only the establishment of paternity, or the establishment or modification of an order for alimony, maintenance or support." H.R. Rep. 103-834, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 37 (Oct. 4, 1994). 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. The parties were married July 1934. In April 1963, the parties entered into a separation agreement. The husband agreed to pay $225 per month for support so long as the wife did not remarry, and $87.50 per month for the support of two of their children. The agreement also provided, that if the husband failed to perform his obligation, the wife could, sue for breach of the contract, or seek such other remedies in law or equity as might be available to her. The agreement also permitted either party to sue for absolute divorce in any competent jurisdiction, to require the agreement to be offered in evidence, and if accepted by the court incorporated by reference in the decree. The agreement provided that notwithstanding incorporation of the agreement into the decree, it was not to be merged in the decree but was to survive and be enforceable as a contract binding upon the parties for all time. The husband then moved to Nevada and obtained a divorce. The agreement was not offered in the action nor did the Nevada court acquire personal jurisdiction over the wife. Rather than paying the wife support, the husband began depositing $75 of the $175 per month he was supposed to in a bank in Las Vegas as an educational fund. The wife then initiated a Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act proceeding in New York against the husband. In Nevada, the district attorney, on behalf of the wife, entered into a stipulation with the husband's counsel, which was approved by the court, under which the husband agreed to send $100 per month to the wife for support and continue to accumulate $75 per month as an educational fund. The husband then stopped paying alimony. The wife then commenced an action in Nevada to enforce the agreement claiming that $4,050 was due for alimony and $3,150 was due for child support. A trial was held and the district court reduced the child support to $75 per month and the alimony to $50 per month. This number is the separate property value for the term of the marriage. Cord v. Neuhoff, 94 Nev. 21, 573 P.2d 1170 (1978) The parties were married in 1931, and remained married until the husband’s death in 1974. The husband’s Will claimed that the entire estate was his separate property. The widow commenced an action asserting the estate to be community property and her entitlement to one half of it. There was a postnuptial agreement between them wherein the wife released present and future community property rights. The district court dismissed the action based upon the postnuptial agreement. The district court found the property provisions of the agreement enforceable. In the agreement, the widow released her present and future community property rights. The district court concluded because the widow gave up her present and future community property rights, she was barred from asserting a community interest in the decedent’s estate. The court also found her action barred by laches. Iowa X Scenario eight shifts the reduced premium the other way, to the member, for the same reasons, and to the same effect, as set out in scenario four, but with smaller totals, since the spousal survivorship interest has been reduced.4 In other words, the member essentially has an automatic, cost-free, survivorship benefit built into the law that automatically restores to him the full amount of the spouse’s shareof the lifetime benefit if she should die before him. No matter what any court might order, if the former spouse dies first, the member not only continues to get hisshare of the benefits, but he will alsoget hershare, for as long as he lives. The Court overturned the presumption that, a parent who commits adultery is unfit as a matter of law. The facts were that mother was awarded primary custody even though lived with a man she later married. The Court overruled Sisson v. Sisson, 77 Nev. 478, 367 P.2d 98 (1961). The danger is even derivative - the lawyers in this town who have sent these things out to the faceless mail order services, or actuaries or other non-attorney preparers, remain liable for the work product. We correct a few of those preparers’ errors each year - some big and some small. The Court applied the requirements of Hill v. Sheriff, Clark County, 85 Nev. 234, 452 P.2d 918 (1969) to juvenile cases. Hill requires a party seeking continuance of a preliminary examination to submit an affidavit listing the names of the absent witnesses and their residences, if known; the diligence used to procure their attendance; a brief summary of the expected testimony of the absent witnesses and whether their evidence could be adduced through other witnesses; when the affiant first learned the witnesses would not attend the hearing; and that the motion is made in good faith and not for delay. The Supreme Court found that the district attorney’s office could have complied with Hill given the two weeks they had to comply. It makes little sense to spend time or money arguing about the merits of cases when the court lacks jurisdiction to act on the subject at all. Lawyers should always focus on the existence or non-existence of jurisdiction as to the subject sought to be brought before the court when initiating (or responding to) any new matter. PAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"> If a future in-kind distribution of the retirement benefits is made, the same level of attention to detail should be given as if the distribution was immediate. Failure to do so enhances the chances of further litigation upon the member’s eligibility. The simple failure of attorneys to think about deferred retirement issues at the time of divorce is probably the principal cause of post-divorce pension litigation. An obvious lesson of the Harms case is to showcase the vulnerability of the legal position of overseas spouses. If they choose to defend themselves in foreign divorce actions, and litigate retirement issues, they will receive orders unenforceable under U.S. federal law, and have to face res judicata arguments as well. If they try to "reserve" the question, they might not ever be able to get a State court to find it has jurisdiction to enforce the "reserved" rights. And if they ignore the action, the member will be able to take a judgment against them on all contested issues, by default (again, with res judicata possibilities looming). The Wright formula also remains unchanged by the new definition of joint physical custody. When the parties have joint physical custody, as defined above, the Wright formula applies, subject to adjustments pursuant to the statutory factors in NRS 125B.080(9). Under the new definition of joint physical custody, there could be a slight disparity in the timeshare. The biggest disparity would be a case in which one party has physical custody of the child 60 percent of the time and the other has physical custody of the child 40 percent of the time. Still, maintaining the lifestyle of the child between the parties' households is the goal ofthe Wright formula, and the financial circumstances of the parties remain the most important factors under NRS 125B.080(9). Wright, 114 Nev. at 1368, 970 P.2d at 1072; Wesley v. Foster, 119 Nev. 110, 113,65 P.3d 251,253 (2003); Barbagallo, 105 Nev. at 551,779 P.2d at 536. Thus, in a joint physical custody situation, if a party seeks a reduction in child support based on the amount of time spent with the child, the party must prove that payment of the full statutory amount of child support is unfair or unjust, given that party's substantial contributions to the child's support. Barbagallo, 105 Nev. at 552,779 P.2d at 536. The three-justice dissent would have found that the family court did have jurisdiction to hear the matter, but not because disputes of "this type" were within the family court¡¯s explicit jurisdiction. Rather, the dissent reasoned that family court judges were equal to all other district court judges, and on separation of powers grounds, that the Legislature lacked authority "to limit the constitutional powers of a district court judge sitting in the family court division." The dissent would therefore have ruled that a district court judge could resolve the dispute, wherever that judge was sitting, and whether or not the case "involved a subject matter outside the scope of NRS 3.223." The "bottom line" of this procedure was to always pay more actual money to the member, and less to the former spouse, than was shown on the face of a simple percentage division of the retirement benefits. Most courts were unaware that the payments ordered were being skewed by the phrasing of the Act and the tax code. Many former spouses, not receiving a Form 1099 or W-2P, thought the money they received was "tax free," not realizing that it was their responsibility to account for, and pay taxes on, all sums they received. See Eatinger v. Committee., TC Memo 1990-310. Many members did not realize that they had a yearly tax credit coming, or how to calculate it. Nevada, like most states, has its own pension program. PERS (the state "Public Employees Retirement System") has origins going back to 1947 and is now codified at NRS 286.010, et seq. Essentially, the system is a defined benefit retirement program. Some states have made such results a matter of statute. In Texas, Family Code Title 5, § 153.3161 explicitly permits a military member to designate a "stand-in" to take the member’s place for parenting time scheduled for a time during which the member is deployed outside the U.S.; but § 156.105 describes such deployment as a "material and substantial change of circumstances sufficient to justify modification of an existing court order." You can find Divorce Jurisdiction Ogawa extending time to file under UCCJEA Some Practical Points to Actual Collection of Child Support Alimony and Pro Teuton Amicus Brief Discussion Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Initial Petition for Return family law jurisdiction Carson City Military Retired Pay and the Danger of REDUX Motion to File Errata on Rivero Amicus Brief The Marren and Page Case List Chesler v Chesler and Prins v Prins The Marren and Page Case List Milender v Marcum Las Vegas spousal law lawyer What Almost Happened to Child Support in Nevada and Why We Still Have to Fi Introduction to Nevada law of community property and debt division The Dangers of REDUX Divorce Jurisdiction available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Division of Military Retirement Benefits in Divorce Section I The Marren and Page Case List Barbash v Barbash The Marren and Page Case List Gladys Baker Olsen Trust ex rel Olsen v Olsen The Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act The Marren and Page Case List Lake v Bender Milisich v Hillhouse Jones v Ed The Marren and Page Case List In re Wilsons Estate Burdick v Pope and Fick The Marren and Page Case List Ellet v Ellet Reciprocal Links: Divorce Jurisdiction Divorce Jurisdiction Divorce Jurisdiction Divorce Jurisdiction |