 
|
Hearing on the Petition for Return
Learn more about Hearing on the Petition for Return.
cbfggWhere the military member is the custodial parent, there is authority indicating that the member can use the SCRA to stave off change-of-custody or contempt proceedings, even where the non-military parent is thus a) If a parent produces credible evidence that the approximate number exercised differs from the number granted by the custody or parenting time order, credit the number according to the evidence without requiring someone to formally petition to modify the custody or parenting time order. In the modern world, pensions are typically divided between spouses to the degree accrued during the marriage. Alimony might be seen, in part, truly as "maintenance" - stopgap payments by the employee spouse to the non-employee spouse to provide the ability to live long enough for the deferred compensation portion of the career asset to enter pay status. Carolina stated that where a domestic relations order upon divorce calls for waiver/relinquishment, that intent can be placed in a QDRO, is exempt from ERISA’s preemption, and has "full force and effect over an ERISA benefit plan," citing 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(A). Some critics complain that such a formula gives the non-employee former spouse an interest in the employee spouse's post-divorce earnings, at least where the divorce occurs while the employee is still working. They argue that the spousal share should be frozen at the earnings level at divorce; a minority of States, including Texas, have adopted this approach, sometimes in cases that do not appear to have contemplated the actual mathematical impact of the decision reached." This minority approach undervalues the spousal interest by giving no compensation for deferred receipt, and also contains a logic problem, at least in a community property analysis, of treating similarly situated persons differently. The parties settled the suit by entering into a stipulation to compromise a paternity action under NRS 126.141(1)(b). The agreement provided that paternity would not be determined, at least with regard to the formal record. South Carolina X The Court first noted that whether the district court’s conclusion is proper on any theory, and is sustained by the findings and evidence, it is the duty of the Court to affirm citing to Goldsworthy v. Johnson, 45 Nev. 355, 204 P. 505 (1921). The Court held where no attempt is made by a spouse to keep separate and community property segregated, so that the properties have become so mixed and intermingled that it is no longer possible to determine their source, such intermingled properties are considered community property. Id. at 297. Where the military member is the custodial parent, there is authority indicating that the member can use the SCRA to stave off change-of-custody or contempt proceedings, even where the non-military parent is thus B> The various different retirement schemes, public and private, have a dizzying array of survivorship vehicles, which range from going into effect automatically unless specific steps are timely taken to prevent it,1 to being lost forever by silence unless very specific steps are timely taken to preserve them.2 These materials will look at the interplay between military and civil service retirements, where a service member leaves military service and begins a second career in the civil service. The wife claimed that she had been a resident of Washoe County for the statutory period of six months prior to her suit being filed. The husband in his answer denied that she had. The case came for trial before a jury which made special findings that while the wife had been in the county for more than six months, she came for the sole purpose of obtaining a divorce, and with the intention of returning to the state from which she came immediately upon being granted a divorce. The Court reviewed the residency statute which read, "[t]he legal residence of a person, with reference to his right of suffrage and eligibility to office, is that place where his habitation is fixed and permanent, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning." The statute granting jurisdiction for divorce provided that a divorce could be obtained in the county in which the plaintiff resided six months before the suit was brought. Finally reaching the crux of the matter, the court adopted the view developed elsewhere that "personal" and "enterprise" goodwill are properly distinguished upon divorce, on the basis of whether any "goodwill could reasonably be marketable as continuing with the business absent the presence of a particular person." The court adopted the holding and reasoning of May v. May, 589 S.E.2d 536 (W. Va. 2003). In a military case, an order dividing retired pay as the property of the member and the former spouse will only be honored by the military if the issuing court exercised personal jurisdiction over the member by reason of: (1) residence in the territorial jurisdiction of the court (other than by military assignment); (2) domicile in the territorial jurisdiction of the court; or (3) consent to the jurisdiction of the court.1 A spousal share may be rolled over to an IRA or other eligible plan, in which case no taxes are withheld. Otherwise, the spouse is taxed on the distribution, and 20% is withheld. Under the FLS proposal, an exactly equal time share is automatically considered to be "joint physical custody." However, it is imperative that if a time share falls within the 40% to 49% range, there should be no automatic or rebuttable presumption that joint physical custody is established. In those circumstances, the trial court must exercise its discretion as to whether a time share of 40% to 49% qualifies as joint physical custody under the specific facts and circumstances of the case before it. The "dual receipt" prohibition in federal law was long a source of troubling inequities in military retirement benefits cases, and led to a large number of "dual comp" cases involving waiver of military retirement benefits. Those inequities were (apparently) solved when Congress repealed the "dual compensation" law, effective October 1, 1999.1 Most of this section is therefore of primarily historical interest, or for purpose of analogies drawn to other areas still litigated (such as disability offsets). SPAN> Mosley is an appeal from an order modifying a joint custody arrangement to sole custody.Although much of the case is dicta espousing shared custody as an ideal, it does not define the term, nor does it distinguish between legal custody and physical custody. The parties’ son was an infant when their joint custody agreement was first approved by the trial court, and he was only five yearsof age at the time the fourth motion relating to custody, which led to the appeal, was filed by his mother. The original custody order provided that "the parents should have joint custody, with appropriate residential arrangements that would accommodate the child’s age,"4 and that "it was the intention of the parties to reach, when the child is of an appropriate age, a true 50/50 time share."5 The many cases that have considered extraordinary visitation as a deviation factor have echoed this test: a deviation may not be had unless there is evidence that the extended visitation has a concrete economic impact on the non-custodial parent and the custodial parent. Turinsky v. Long, 910 P.2d 590 (Alaska 1996); Renfro v. Renfro, 848 P.2d 803 (Alaska 1993) (adjustment based on expenses incurred during visitation should at least be considered by court, even if deviation is not ultimately granted); Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, 632 So. 2d 257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (child'S extended visitation with father can be considered in making award where extended stays have the effect of reducing the custodial parent's expenses); Marmaduke v. Marmaduke, 640 N.E.2d 441 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (where father had custody close to 50%, proper to deviate to compensate for added expenses); Terpstra v. Terpstra, 588 N.E.2d 592 (Ind. ct. App. 1992) (close to 50% custody warranted deviation where there was evidence concerning noncustodial parent's expenses); In re Marriage of Gray, 18 Kan. App. 2d 15, 846 P.2d 944 (1993) (court may deviate for extensive visitation); Remson v. Remson, 672 So. 2d 409 (La. Ct. App. 1996) (court would reduce father's obligation because of economic impact of extended visitation); Brazan v. Brazan, 638 So. 2d 1176 (La. Ct. App. 1994) (where father had child 50% of the time, court would deviate to account for such arrangement, since father paid for child care and medical insurance); Montet v. Montet, 629 So. 2d 538 (La. Ct. APP· 1993) Goint custooy is reason for deviation where the parents contribute equally in the day-to-day care of the child); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 870 S.W.2d 480 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) (noncustodial father not entitled to reduction in support, despite claim that children were with him 36% of the time, where there was no evidence concerning economic impact); Kappelmann v. Kappelmann, 218 A.D.2d 698, 630 N.Y.S.2d 555 (1995) (father entitled to adjustment in support for summer months children spent with him); Narvae v. Freestone, 281 N.J. Super. SPAN> Champagne v. Welfare Divorce., 100 Nev. 640, 652, 691 P.2d 849, 858 (1984) Reversed by In the Matter of Termination of Parental Rights of N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 8 P.3d 126 (2000) First, the Missouri definition recognizes that "joint physical custody" could exist even if parents do not have an equal time share. The FLS asks the Supreme Court to clarify that an award of joint physical custody should not be an option the trial court may consider unless some objective minimum time threshold is established. But that is what Welfare wants to do with child support. Such an unreasonable interpretation of a statute - one that does not actually accomplish the stated legislative goal - is to be rejected out of hand. This article addresses only the situation where the disability award follows the divorce.1 It provides the basic history and conflicts involved in military disability cases before describing what has changed and discussing what this means for litigation of military-related cases from this time forward. One particularly notorious firm files everything in Nye County - regardless of where the parties to the case might live - and does so very, very badly. Not only do they violate the jurisdiction and venue statutes with every divorce they file in Tonopah, they are in continual violation of the unauthorized practice rules. This particular firm has a supposed "supervising attorney" who lives and works 450 miles from the paralegals supposedly being supervised. According to Ms. Morgan, Illinois offers no statutory guidance, and because that State is in the midst of completely changing its guideline structure to an income shares model, we did not look at Illinois statutory or case law very closely. Third, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion by denying Ms. Rivero's motion to modify child support without making any factual findings to justify its decision. We also clarify the circumstances under which a district court may modify a child support order. Under NRS Chapter 125B and our caselaw, a court has authority to modify a child support order upon a finding of a change in circumstances since the prior order. Also, in accordance with the Family Law Section's suggestion, we withdraw the Rivero formula for calculating child support. You can find Hearing on the Petition for Return Rivero v Rivero Opinion Section V Custody Visitation and Temporary Support Issues Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Three Section I Section II Subsection C Major Cases Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief CONCLUSION expert pay child support The Marren and Page Case List Mosley v Figliuzzi The Marren and Page Case List Weeks v Weeks Hedlund Amicus Brief Statement of Facts Hearing on the Petition for Return available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Family Law and Contingency Fees Time to Reconsider Section I The Marren and Page Case List In the Matter of Parental Rights as to Q L R Conclusions as to Disability Awards Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section X Subsection B The Marren and Page Case List Sly v Sly and York v York Las Vegas CSRS expert lawyer Service Members Life Insurance Reciprocal Links: Hearing on the Petition for Return Hearing on the Petition for Return Hearing on the Petition for Return Hearing on the Petition for Return |