Hedlund Amicus Brief Statement of Facts

Learn more about Hedlund Amicus Brief Statement of Facts.

The family law section of the State Bar of Nevada

When the Senate Judiciary Committee was informed of the various problems with the bill, that evening, instructions were given to have it quietly amended, essentially overnight and with no record other than the bill draft itself, but the Section was informed that it could not be killed entirely, apparently as a matter of comity from chamber to chamber. The worst portions of the bill were removed between June 28 and June 30, 1995; it was redirected to apply solely to PERS retirements, and was reprinted, passed, and returned to the Assembly, which concurred in the amendments without other record. Military retirement benefits can be treated as property to be divided between the parties, or as a source of payment of child or spousal support, or both. All that is necessary to use military retirement benefits as a source for child support or spousal support payments is proper service on the military pay center of a certified court order, issued by a court having personal jurisdiction over both parties under the law of that state, requiring payments to a former spouse for such support. 2) If the court or administrative law judge determines actual parenting time exercised by a parent is different than what is provided in a written parenting plan or court order, the percentage of parenting time may be calculated using the actual parenting time exercised by the parent. Irrespective of its legal merits, which are not discussed here, Argentena was a public policy disaster. By making it more difficult for lawyers to ever actually get paid if clients owed them money, the opinion provided a strong incentive for attorneys to withdraw from cases in mid-litigation, thus increasing the total number of proper person litigants and increasing pressure on the court system itself, and on the self-help and pro bono programs, especially in family court. One portion of the case law is apparently unanimous. A comprehensive review of the cases throughout the United States reveals that there is no legitimate authority for the proposition that where the divorce decree preceded Mansell, there can ever be a waiver of retired pay by the retiree in favor of VA disability benefits without compensation being required to be paid to the former spouse, dollar for dollar, as to all sums the retiree’s actions caused to be diverted from her back to him. And there is authority governing what to do in the circumstance when all parties have left the issuing State, but one of them moves back before any other State assumes jurisdiction to modify the support order. When the Senate Judiciary Committee was informed of the various problems with the bill, that evening, instructions were given to have it quietly amended, essentially overnight and with no record other than the bill draft itself, but the Section was informed that it could not be killed entirely, apparently as a matter of comity from chamber to chamber. The worst portions of the bill were removed between June 28 and June 30, 1995; it was redirected to apply solely to PERS retirements, and was reprinted, passed, and returned to the Assembly, which concurred in the amendments without other record. We replicated the table of hypothetical sums due and sums paid from the Welfare Division’s Manual,1 at the request of the District Attorney. Over the same one-year time period as the sample in the Manual, the private Bar calculates a total penalty (as of 12/31/04) of $85.90. The Welfare calculation shows $230, grossly overstating the penalties actually owed, in the short term, by immediately assessing in toto a penalty that is supposed to be applied "per annum." B> 3. "Service credits accrued" as used in above formula shall mean all service credits accrued as of the moment of the Memberfs first eligibility for retirement. SUP> Ms. Cooney did reveal that she was the current spouse of Judge Michael Fondi, but apparently never disclosed that the legislation could be used to undo this Court’s decision in the original Fondi case and dispossess the earlier former spouse of her interest in the retirement benefits.3 She also did not reveal that Judge Fondi had already filed a second appeal in this Court relating to those retirement benefits,4 which could be affected by the legislation. Second, each year the COLA for such members is less than for other retirees (Consumer Price Index adjustment minus one percent). However, at age 62, the retiree’s monthly income is recomputed to supply the sum that would have been paid if the full COLA had been applied every year from retirement to age 62, which at that moment becomes prospectively payable, as if there had not been reductions during those intervening years.3 After that "restoral," however, the reduction returns with each COLA after age 62 for life. The Supreme Court rejected the wife’s claim as well. The Court concluded that the wife failed to rebut the presumption of gift by clear and convincing evidence. The Court noted that when separate funds of a spouse were used to acquire property in the names of the husband and wife as joint tenants, it is presumed that a gift of one-half of the value of the joint tenancy property was intended which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence citing to Gorden v. Gorden, 93 Nev. 494, 497, 569 P.2d 397 (1977). The Court held that the wife’s testimony, standing alone, was insufficient to rebut the presumption of gift. The same result was reached in three cases from Tennessee decided in early 2001, two from that State’s Court of Appeals, and a third from the Tennessee Supreme Court: Hillyer v. Hillyer22; Smith v. Smith23; Johnson v. Johnson.24 All three decision discussed the Mansell holding at length. They started with the legal principles that military retired pay is marital property subject to distribution, and that periodic payments to a spouse are distributions of property rather than alimony. As such, a divorce decree’s division of retired pay is final, and when not appealed, is not subject to later modification. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court noted that custody and support of minor children rested in the sound discretion of the district court, and its discretion would not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly abused citing to Fenkell v. Fenkell, 86 Nev. 397, 469 P.2d 701 (1970); Peavey v. Peavey, 85 Nev. 571, 460 P.2d 110 (1969) and Cosner v. Cosner, 78 Nev. 242, 371 P.2d 278 (1962). The Court noted that in determining custody the court’s paramount consideration should be the welfare of the child citing to NRS 125.140; Peavey v. Peavey, 85 Nev. 571, 460 P.2d 110 (1969) and Paine v. Paine, 71 Nev. 262, 287 P.2d 716 (1955). The Court further noted that it was presumed the district court properly exercised its discretion citing to Howe v. Howe, 87 Nev. 595, 491 P.2d 38 (1971); Noble v. Noble, 86 Nev. 459, 470 P.2d 430 (1970); Fenkell v. Fenkell, 86 Nev. 397, 469 P.2d 701 (1970) and Cosner v. Cosner, 78 Nev. 242, 371 P.2d 278 (1962). The Court noted the district court specifically found a significant change of circumstances in the parties, as well as the fact that the conduct of the mother rendered her unfit to have the care, custody and control of the minor children and that a change in custody to the father was in the children’s best interest. The Court concluded that the record could be read to support the findings and conclusions reached by the district court. The Court further concluded that in reaching its decision, the district court had adhered to and applied properly applied the rule concerning child custody. The Court found that the intimate relationship of the mother and her boyfriend in the close proximity of children of tender years could be deemed a harmful influence. The Court found further support for the district court’s conclusion because that had the opportunity to observe the parties and their demeanor on the witness stand, to appraise their relative fitness for custody of the minor children citing to Timney v. Timney, 76 Nev. 230, 351 P.2d 611 (1960). Under the existing case law, the scope of judicial discretion in "disproportionate division" cases would appear to be at least as broad as that exercised by trial courts in other contexts, such as awarding alimony or awarding attorney’s fees. In disproportionate division cases, the court need only find (and identify in writing) some "compelling reason" (presumably, tied to one of the categories identified by the two opinions) without doing any of the things that have been found to be an "abuse of discretion" in other contexts, such as making a pronouncement in the absence of any substantial evidence in the record, or reaching a conclusion based on an identifiably erroneous legal rationale. The former spouse is taxed on Survivor’s Benefit Plan payments as he or she would be for other payments from an annuity.1 The payments to the former spouse are taxable income. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted that NRS 125B.070(1) set forth the formula in setting child support. The Court also noted that under NRS 125B.080(6) if a court deviates from the formula amount, findings of fact must be set forth which established the basis for deviation. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in deviating because it failed to set forth findings of fact which provided the amount of support which the father would owe under the formula and the basis for its deviation from the formula when it reduced the father’s child support obligation by $100 and for the complete abatement of support during summer visitation. The Court’s concern is well-grounded from the face of ICARA, and the question posed has been asked by several federal district court judges in identical circumstances. In In re Application of McCullough, 4 Supp. 2d 411(U.D. Pa. 1998) a Canadian father filed a petition for return under the Hague Convention, along with an ex parte petition for the issuance of warrant in place of a writ of habeas corpus, seeking to take the two children of the parties into custody. The facts indicated that the mother might flee the area or country with the children. 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. It is the far better practice to deal with pensions during the divorce itself, instead of deferring the matter to be dealt with "later." Some states do not clearly permit a spouse who does not receive a portion of pension benefits upon divorce to bring a partition action at a later date to divide those benefits, and the law on the subject still contains some contradictions. Another common error of courts and counsel dividing defined contribution plans is the failure to take into account the time that will pass between the agreement or court proceeding and the physical division of the account. This can be done, easily, by a few words either providing for sharing of the investment gains and losses until actual distribution, or by freezing the spousal share at a specific sum for transfer. In enacting NRS 125A.340, the requirement that the grandparent/petitioner be the parent of either the noncustodial parent or a deceased parent was deleted, conceivably allowing a grandparent to seek visitation rights over the objection of both parents, including the objection of his or her own child. Under the original enactment of the USFSPA, which governed all divorce decrees filed prior to February 4, 1991, the military pay center withheld taxes from the gross retired pay, divided the post-tax amount between the member and the spouse pursuant to court order, and sent a check to each. At the end of each year, the member was eligible to claim a tax credit for amounts withheld on sums ultimately paid to the former spouse, and the former spouse owed a tax liability for any amounts received. Once it is determined that a non-custodial parent does, indeed, have "custody," the next step is to determine whether the parents have "shared custody" or "extraordinary visitation." The various guidelines have addressed this question in basically three ways: (1) substantially equal time, (2) time greater than a threshold amount of somewhere between 20% and 40%, or (3) shared custody/extraordinary visitation as a deviation factor. If you are going through a divorce, if you need separation papers, if you need to iron out child custody issues, call on Las Vegas Marshall Willick attorney at law. You will find Las Vegas Marshall Willick a dedicated family law attorney. We also handle PERS, TSP, CSRS, FERS, ERISA, REA, QDRO, SBP AND UIFSA for you. As a matter of law, it is possible to value the spousal share in at least two ways. The great majority of States applying the time rule view the "community" years of effort qualitatively rather than quantitatively, reasoning that the early and later years of total service are equally necessary to the retirement benefits ultimately received.2 This provides to the former spouse an ever "smaller slice of a larger pie" by getting a shrinking percentage of a retirement that is increasing in size based upon post-divorce increases in the wage-earner¡¯s salary and years in service. Two children of parents who divorced in 1972 (when the children were 12 and 13) sued the estate after the father died. The decree had required the father to establish a trust of $25,000 payable when the elder child reached 25. The father never established the trust, and left them nothing when he died. They claimed the mother never told them about the provision of the decree calling for the trust to be established. The district court dismissed the suit as time-barred. The Supreme Court reversed. There has been much attention recently by the Supreme Court and the local media to lawyer advertising. The argument is that some advertising demeans the practice of law and may mislead the public. It is interesting that we don't seem to have the same concern for lawyers who ignore the Rules of Professional Conduct and Bounds of Advocacy even though these traits truly demean the practice and lead the public to believe that we condone this behavior. It is past time for the courts to take the appropriate action and fulfill their responsibility to police the profession. The RC-SBP was amended as of January 1, 2001, to require written spouse concurrence for taking any benefit less than Option C. Thus, the order of events for retirement and divorce make a difference as to whether the former spouse will have any input into the option selected. The district court found the ranch and range lands, buildings, and improvements, supplies and equipment to be worth $180,000, livestock $56,008, a promissory note $12,000, cash on deposit $15,522, an automobile $2,320. The assets were subject to an encumbrance of $45,000 for payment of the ranch, leaving a net value in the sum of $220,850. The court then found ranch, at the time of the divorce, comprised several smaller ranches that had been acquired during the marriage and integrated into a single ranching unit. The district court further found that the integrated ranching unit was capable of producing more cattle, than as separate components, so that a partition would not only decrease the value, but would cost more money be required the spending of substantial sums for the purchasing of fencing and building improvements. The district court refused to assign to the wife a ranch on which the parties had resided. It must be noted that after the Court adopted the Missouri definition, it became common practice for litigants to claim that the case law of Missouri must solely control determination of issues of joint physical custody. We do not believe that this Court intended to adopt the case law of Missouri merely because it chose to borrow that State’s statutory definition of joint legal custody. While Missouri case law may be informative, and perhaps persuasive, it should not control the analysis and outcome of a case. A trial court must not be prevented or limited in its review of all law that is relevant and applicable to the facts and issues before it. 3. The presumption that more parenting time by the ARP results in greater expenditures which should result in a reduction to the ARP's support obligation may be rebutted by evidence. The court found it "illogical" to limit the spousal share to a portion of disposable retired pay, and considered the USFSPA a complete repudiation of the McCarty holding. The court focused upon the legislative history that declared Congress’ intent to "restore the law to what it was," and noted that previous California law had called for division of the entirety of military retirement, as it did with all other retirement benefits. About the only tactical advice that can be offered to spouses of members who are overseas is to ensure that any divorce proceeds through the U.S. courts, with the member clearly consenting to litigation in that jurisdiction. If, for whatever reason, that is impossible, it seems that the spouse would be prudent to begin American proceedings simultaneously with any foreign divorce, in whatever State the member had last established residence or domicile, by way of declaratory judgment or partition. While this is non-obvious, and inconvenient, and expensive, it is the closest thing to some assurance of protection of the spousal share that appears to be available under current law. There has been a large wave of pet custody cases in recent years, and more Courts are starting to realize the value of the emotional bond between a human and their pet. A New York Appeals Court granted custody of a pet cat "Lovey" as a condition that the plaintiff pay all vet expenses. The Plaintiff and Defendant in this case were not married, but were former roommates. When they wanted to go their separate ways, the Plaintiff sought permanent custody of his "property," i.e. "Lovey."1 While some courts have expressed the opinion that an outright award of spousal support in the sum of military retirement benefits lost by reason of a disability election constitutes a violation of Mansell,4 other courts have had no problem with the direct substitution of alimony for the intended property award. In Austin (Scott) v. Austin,5 the court instituted an award of alimony, that had been previously reserved until remarriage, in lieu of the pension share lost because of the member’s transfer to VA disability status. The court gave its approval to alimony continuing after the spouse’s remarriage, where the alimony award is intended to compensate for distribution of a pension earned during marriage, citing Arnholt v. Arnholt.6

You can find Hedlund Amicus Brief Statement of Facts Penalty Calculations Public Employees Retirement System PERS Benefits Section III Subsection C P The Marren and Page Case List Breedlove v Breedlove Division of Military Retirement Benefits in Divorce Updates on Prior Notes Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Three Section Three The Marren and Page Case List Barbash v Barbash The Marren and Page Case List Sprenger v Sprenger Introduction to Nevada law of community property and debt division Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Part Two Subsection III C Divorce Jurisdiction Rivero v Rivero Opinion IV B Subsection Two Legal Authority For Use in Requesting Fees in a Pro Bono Case Documents to Be Filed If it Is Determined That an Emergency Pick up Is Warr Valuation of Military Retirement Benefits Hedlund Amicus Brief Statement of Facts available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above.

Site Map

Why It Might Be Appropriate to Re-allocate the SBP Premium The Marren and Page Case List Rosenbaum v Rosenbaum Child Custody Modification Jurisdiction Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section IV Subsection B Progress of a Sort An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section I Subsection B Introduction to Nevada Law of Child Custody and Visitation in Divorce