Las Vegas lawyer Marshall Willick

Learn more about Las Vegas lawyer Marshall Willick.

When it comes to experience in family law, Las Vegas lawyer Marshall Willick can´t be beat. Las Vegas lawyer Marshall Willick has earned a reputation as a diligent trial and appellate court lawyer. We can handle contested divorce, mediation, jurisdiction, penalties and pension problems.

The mother tried to remove the guardianship in late 1989, alleging interference with visitation, but abandoned the effort because her drug dependency made her unfit. In 1991, mother moved to Chicago and entered a drug rehabilitation program. The grandparents moved from California to Nevada. There was some visitation, in Nevada and Illinois, at least four times. The mother married, in Chicago, in 1993, and moved back to Nevada to be near the child, visiting "pretty much every day." The appellate court restated the question as being the time of valuation, with the choices being the sum the husband would have been able to receive if he had retired at divorce, or the sum payable at retirement. The court acknowledged that the longer the husband worked after divorce, the smaller the wife¡¯s portion became. The court accepted the wife¡¯s position that to "lock in" the value of the wife¡¯s interest to the value at divorce, while delaying payment to actual retirement, prevented the wife from "earning a reasonable return on her interest." These differences change the actuarial assumptions going into present value calculations, and alter the negotiation and litigation strategies of the lawyers. For example, lawyers trying to negotiate temporary spousal support might well have different positions if they are assuming that retirement is ten years closer, or further away. The lesson is to calculate each possible retirement age, and build into the resulting outcome whatever flexibility is required to cope with the uncertainty. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted that during the parties’ negotiations, the husband and his attorney informed the wife that the proposed, and later agreed-to, division of assets was essentially equal when in fact the wife received approximately 29 percent of the parties’ assets. The Court noted that "[t]he salutary purpose of Rule 60(b) is to redress any injustices that may have resulted because of excusable neglect or the wrongs of an opposing party. Rule 60 should therefore be liberally construed to effectuate that purpose," citing to Nevada Indus. Devel., Inc. v. Benedetti, 103 Nev. 360, 364, 741 P.2d 802, 805 (1987). Id. at 361-62. The Court also noted that the record showed that the representations were the result of either mistake or fraud. If both parties were mistaken, then a mutual mistake entitled a party to relief from a judgment under NRCP 60(b)(1). However, if the husband or his counsel knew the value of the pension, they fraudulently misrepresented it and such fraud is grounds for relief from the judgment pursuant under RCP 60(b)(2). TIME PERIOD. The Alternate Payee shall be entitled to the benefit as calculated above for [period of years beginning with date of Participantfs retirement, or as long as Participant is receiving benefits or for some other period chosen by the parties so long as clearly stated and in compliance with the Act]. The Alternate Payee is entitled to payment under the above described formula (or flat dollar amount less than the full benefit) as applied to option __________________ (unmodified benefit or one of the six enumerated options set forth at NRS 286.590) [Note: Lacking this information, the System will assume that the Participant has sole discretion in the choice of a retirement plan and/or whether to retire or take a refund of contributions made if available. Monies payable to an Alternate Payee will be paid in accordance with the benefit plan elected by the Participant]. The parties were divorced October 1990. The mother was awarded primary custody. In April 2000, the mother filed a move motion. The father opposed and a hearing was held. The mother testified that she could earn more money in in New Jersey, working for her sister and brother-in-law’s company as a sales and marketing administrator, and having the potential of qualifying for bonuses and even possibly acquiring a future equity share. The mother and child lived in a 900 square foot trailer, however, if she and the child moved to New Jersey, they would initially live with her sister and brother-in-law in their 3,000 square foot, four bedroom house. The mother testified that she hoped to rent a house. The mother also testified that she planned to enroll the parties’ daughter at a school for gifted children. The mother testified that the school was superior to anything offered where she lived. There was also extended family that lived in the area and there were no relatives where she was currently living. The father opposed the move because he believed that moving the child from regular visitation was not in the child’s best interest. The district court concluded that NRS 125C.200 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court found that NRS 125C.200 implicitly restricted a custodial parent's fundamental right to travel and that no compelling state interest was satisfied by the restriction. Because of that the mother did not need the court’s permission to move. The district court also found that even if the statute was constitutional, the mother met her burden for moving. 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. Most reviewing courts, however, have either found or simply assumed that Mansell is applicable in litigation concerning post-divorce recharacterizations by retirees, and attempted to apply it. Nevertheless, those appellate courts have almost uniformly reached the same conclusions as the court in Krempin, by other means. 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). 65279;Further, in the years since Mansell, reviewing courts have gone from examination of the decree to see if there was a specific savings clause by which the spousal share could survive the retiree's recharacterization, to examining the underlying decree for a specific provision permitting the retiree to retroactively reduce the award to the former spouse. benefits upon divorce just as "vested" as those of the member.1 The court waded through just about all the kinds of claims made by members attempting to redirect to themselves funds already awarded to their former spouses - the "indirect violation" or "spirit of" Mansell argument, exemption from community property law by reason of application for a federally-paid disability argument, and the allegation that protecting the spouse would circumvent "Congressional intent" or violate the Supremacy Clause. The court was unimpressed on all counts.2 Proponents asserted that there was a value of establishing some level of consistency between case and departments, and predictability in any give] case, because litigation of the "What the heck, giv. it a try" variety could be reduced - on both sides - j there was some kind of objective methodology for establishing a presumptive spousal support award that could then be varied (up or down) in accordance with the particular facts of the case. Critics protested that any such approach "eliminates judicial independence" or "hinders good lawyering" - the same sort of complaints that were heard when the concept of child support guidelines were first proposed. 65279;The Supreme Court reversed. The Court reasserted and expanded the 1974 Buchanan factors as a list of what was to be considered by courts setting alimony awards: (1) the financial condition of the parties; (2) the nature and value of the parties' respective property; (3) the contribution of each to any property held by them as tenants by the entirety; (4) the duration of the marriage; (5) the husband's income, earning capacity, age, health, and ability to labor; and (6) the wife's age, health, station and ability to earn a living. Noting the "archaic tenor" of the factors, the Court nonetheless applauded them for being "common sense," and added examples of factors that "conceivably could from time to time be relevant as well" as including "the existence of specialized education or training or level of marketable skills attained by each spouse," and "repetitive acts of physical or mental abuse" by one spouse "causing a condition in the injured spouse which generates expense or affects that person's ability to work." Id. at 999. The Court stressed that simple marital misconduct or fault are expressly not to be alimony factors, so alimony is not "a sword to level the wrongdoer" or "a prize to reward virtue." Id. at 999. These materials, therefore, address a few aspects of locating servicemembers, matters of temporary support order, and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, but largely focus, even as to preliminary matters such as jurisdiction, on the discussion of retirement benefits, which comprise the bulk of the materials. Since the sole subject of these materials is matrimonial law, questions of collections of commercial debts, etc., are not addressed here, except tangentially. Also, the focus here is on monetary matters, so matters of custody and visitation are given short shrift. B) The Secretary concerned shall hold th e am aunt retain ed un der clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) until such time as that Secretary is provided with a court order which has been certified by the member and the spouse or former spouse to be valid and applicable to the retained amount. Upon being provided with such an order, the Secretary shall pay the retained amount in accordance with the order. 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. The mother tried to remove the guardianship in late 1989, alleging interference with visitation, but abandoned the effort because her drug dependency made her unfit. In 1991, mother moved to Chicago and entered a drug rehabilitation program. The grandparents moved from California to Nevada. There was some visitation, in Nevada and Illinois, at least four times. The mother married, in Chicago, in 1993, and moved back to Nevada to be near the child, visiting "pretty much every day." The parties divorced in 1995 and had three children. The mother received primary physical custody. The mother remarried. Her husband was a member of the Air Force. The husband then received a transfer to Japan. The mother filed a motion with the court seeking permission to move. The father filed a countermotion seeking a change in custody. The district court entered an order denying permission to move and granting the father’s request if the mother did move. The order was entered without a hearing. Likewise, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the award of sole custody of the family’s Labrador Retriever to the husband because the wife’s other dogs were a threat to the Labrador’s life.4 This is similar to Nevada’s recent changes to NRS 33.018, taking into account the harm that may succumb to an animal when they are placed with one person or the other. Further, if the former spouse was receiving both DIC and SBP, and the remarriage occurred when the former spouse was over 55 years, the SBP payment is apparently increased to the full amount (in other words, the DIC offset is replaced by additional SBP dollars, leaving the only effect one of taxation).1 The Court rejected the father's assertion that the motion to increase was barred by the six-month limitation in NRCP 60(b), and noted that perNRS 125B.145(1)(b), there was no time bar to a review of child support upon the filing ofa request for review. The Court also rejected the father's request that the mother's cohabitant's income be considered. The Court found that the lower court could examine the role of the mother's cohabitant's income in determining the "relative income of the parties" under NRS 125B.080(9). Specifically, a parent's gross income also does not include an adult co-habitant's income. However, both the income of a new spouse and an adult co-habitant's contributions to the household expenses can be considered as a basis for deviation from the statutory formula under NRS I 25B.080(9)(1) (relative income of both parents). As such, a cohabitant's contribution to a parent's rent and other expenses may be taken into account when setting or modifying child support per NRS I 25B.080(9). At bottom, if the parties intended to own the property in accordance with their contributions toward it, the court should parse out whether the parties contributed equally or otherwise (with a secondary question of whether there was a quid pro quo in the mortgage-for-groceries allocation). On the other hand, if the parties intended to and did live in a stable, marriage-like relationship while knowing that they were not, in fact, married, the court could and presumably would find that the property acquired by either of them during that relationship is to be divided exactly as community property would be, because any other division would be less fair than an equal division.6 The facts of the case drive a number of other factors that might be necessarily addressed in the order, including the possibility of an early or late retirement, or a disability or any other post-retirement reduction in benefits, and whether payments are to begin at eligibility for retirement, and are to be based on the rank and grade at the time of divorce, or at actual retirement.

You can find Las Vegas lawyer Marshall Willick Motion to File Errata on Rivero The Marren and Page Case List Finley v Finley The Marren and Page Case List Foster v Washoe County and Duff v Lewis Expert Witness The Marren and Page Case List Johnson v Johnson Pereira v Pereira Van Camp The Marren and Page Case List Kennedy v Kennedy The Marren and Page Case List Petersen v Petersen Williams v Waldman and Co The Marren and Page Case List Forrest v Forrest OHara v Stat ex rel Pub Emp Any Reimbursment to Separate Property for Monies Expended and Mandatory Dis The Marren and Page Case List Ellett v Ellett Gojack v Second Judicial Dist The Marren and Page Case Russo v Gardner McDermott v McDermott and Hayes v Division 5050 or Other Death of Member After Retirement and Before Divorce Follow Up Orders Reno divorce family law expert The Marren and Page Case List In re Wilsons Estate and Burdick v Pope Las Vegas lawyer Marshall Willick available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above.

Site Map

Rivero v Rivero Opinion Section V family law jurisdiction CONCLUSION Child Custody Jurisdiction in Nevada The Marren and Page Case List Barrett v Franke Sly v Sly and Robison v Robi The Marren and Page Case List Magiera v Luera and Russo v Gardner The Marren and Page Case List In the Matter of Parental Rights as to J L N Spousal Support