 
|
Marren and Page Case List
Learn more about Marren and Page Case List.
Alimony just and equitable Krick v Krick Wilde v Wilde Winn v Winn Gardner v Gardner Kerley v Kerley and Wright v OsburnOne California court, surveying cases from around the country, held in 1999 that Mansell does not apply to post-judgment waivers of retirement pay at all, because Mansell held only that disability benefits could not be divided "upon divorce."1 In any event, the same thing was done in 2003 - all numbers in the chart were increased by the CPI again. The 2003 Legislature, however, altered the statute to freeze the income brackets, while still adjusting the presumptive maximums, to prevent people with relatively consistent salaries from "jumping brackets" in reverse (which would have lowered their presumptive maximum payments). New presumptive maximum charts were issued by the AOC each year. As of July 1, 2006, the lowest bracket yielded a presumptive maximum of $566. William and Liv divorced in 1994. Their divorce decree divested Liv of her interest in the SIP. For reasons never explained, however, William did not execute the form removing Liv as the SIP beneficiary. He did change the beneficiary designation for his pension plan, naming his daughter as beneficiary, but he never altered the beneficiary under the SIP. The parties married while the wife was pregnant. The wife claimed that she told the husband the father was another man; the husband admitted that wife never told him that he was the father of the child. The parties cohabited intermittently until separating when the child was three. The wife relocated to Iowa, where she raised the child alone, was on welfare, and attended school. The parties discussed reconciliation in 1990, but the attempt, in Las Vegas, lasted only 30 days. The wife filed for divorce. Harms is remarkable, among other things, for the sheer tenacity of its litigants. Many similar cases are apparently resolved quickly and quietly, at least where one party does not oppose a correction to what is apparently conceded to be an inequitable result. For example, in Stewart v. Gomez,3 the parties had been divorced in 1987 in England. The member, who arranged for the British divorce, had specifically assured the former spouse that he "was looking out for the best interest of" the spouse and their children and "specifically promised that when he retired" the former spouse "would receive a portion of the military retirement benefits." The member subsequently retired and moved to Nevada, but did nothing to ensure payments to the former spouse. The former spouse moved to South Carolina. The reason for not only permitting, but encouraging the use of such indemnification clauses was explained well by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Gatfield3: it basically ensures that the divorce courts are free to enforce the parties’ declared intent as a matter of contract law.4 Any court reviewing a decree seeking intent to indemnify must be careful to not give retroactive effect to either the USFSPA, or any case interpreting it (i.e., Mansell) so as to defeat an existing flow of payments to a former spouse. As stated by various courts over the years, it would "thwart the very title of the Act, the ´Uniform Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act,’ to construe the law as preventing a spouse from actually receiving a court ordered portion of military retirement benefits."5 American Bar Association committee recommendations to Congress to make division of retirement benefits non-dischargeable were apparently responsible in part for enactment of the prior subsection (a)(15) exceptions to discharge, but a detailed exploration of those provisions is beyond the scope of these materials.2 This Court rejected the husband’s attack on Gemma, which he had argued was "fatally flawed" for non-recognition of the "passive appreciation of the sole and separate portion" of the retirement during the marriage, and explicitly reaffirmed its holdings in Gemma, Sertic, and Fondi. C. To the extent there is a period of less than 24 hours remaining in the block of time, after all 24-hour days are counted or for any block of time which is in total tess than 24 hours in duration: While this may appear comical, the reality is, we have all been faced with this issue at one time or another in our careers. There have been thousands of billable hours expended on returning "Fluffy" to our desperate clients, who are willing to negotiate away vast amounts of monetary entitlements in order to keep "Fluffy" in their care. To the client it is obvious, "Fluffy" has value in excess of his or her "fair market value." The USFSPA has included a savings clause since its original passage, intended to prevent misapplication of the law to subvert existing divorce court orders: bsp; (1) Two possible ways to separate - direct tracing, or exhaustion. SUP> But the bill was not killed as the Section was informed. Instead, it was assigned to a subcommittee, consisting of four members of the Assembly, who apparently met with Ms. Cooney In an effort to move the alimony analysis toward predictability and consistency, the ALI has suggested recasting the question of alimony as one of "loss occasioned by dissolution" rather than one of the "need" of the former spouse. Changing focus from "need" to "loss" makes the question one of entitlement rather than a subjective plea for assistance; this seems positive, but inadequate. SUP> The warrant to obtain protective custody of the child, to be accomplished at the same time as notice of the substantive hearing, is necessary to avoid the child being further hidden or kidnaped. The pick-up order secures temporary relief - it is just to guarantee that the child is not removed from this Court’s jurisdiction before a hearing can be held on the Petition for Return of Child. In 1999, Congress again changed the rules, modifying what had become known as the "REDUX" plan to provide for an irrevocable choice of retirement plans to be made by that third group of members (who entered service after July 31, 1986), at their 15th year of service. Such members are given the choice of taking the same "High-3" retirement paid to those who entered service between September 8, 1980, and July 31, 1986, or to take the lowered REDUX benefits described above, plus a one-time lump-sum "Career Status Bonus" (CSB) of $30,000.00 payable at the 15-year mark.After the 1999 change, this option became known as the CSB/REDUX option. 3)(A)ln the event of effective service of conflicting court orders under this section which assert to direct that different amounts be paid during a month to the same spouse or former spouse of the same member, the Secretary concerned shal1-- A hideously convoluted custodial case (same facts as Duff v. Lewis) involving multiple allegations of sexual abuse of two minor children by both sides, conflicting Temporary Protective Orders, back-and-forth custody orders, and a host of potential wrongdoers, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint brought by the eventuallytriumphant mother, who asserted that the County government, the CASA ("Court Appointed Special Advocate") program, a volunteer CASA worker, and various other employees were negligent and that their negligence had led to damage to the children. The district court judge had dismissed the suit, stating that the defendants had immunity under NRS 41.032(2). As briefly recounted above in the section introducing the USFSPA, there is more than one way to obtain collection of a court award from an active-duty or retired military member. The parties were married September 1940. The husband, even though he was 81, commenced divorce proceedings. The district court gave the wife a lump sum support and maintenance award of $331,200 payable in nine installments, and awarded the wife's counsel $47,500, plus $5,000 preliminary fees. The district court came up with the figure by taking into consideration the fact that the husband's life expectancy was 4.9 years, the wife's life expectancy was 23.1 years. The district court awarded the alimony on the basis of $1 ,200 per month or $14,337.66 per year multiplied by her life expectancy, totaling $331,100, taking into consideration factors including the wife's age, health, length of marriage, standard of living, assets of each party, health insurance policies, ownership of furnishings, earning capacity of each party and conduct of the parties. In PERS, or any other defined benefit plan,1 the above wage history would make his average monthly salary during his last three years¡¯ service $4,014.21, and the retirement formula2 would make his retired pay $2,007.11. ch a retirement division would treat the parties equally, at least as to cost. The member’s benefit is still vastly superior to that of the spouse, so while they share the cost equally, the member gets a whole lot more out of that cost than the spouse does. The wife’s original complaint had been an adversary proceeding in the husband’s bankruptcy case, alleging validity of the UCC lien, and fraudulent transfer of assets by husband to partners under the auspices of a forced sale default provision; she requested the bankruptcy be revoked. Three years later, she filed a state complaint, alleging 16 causes of action, including fraud, conspiracy, and violations of federal and state RICO laws against the husband and his attorney (Beckley Singleton). She filed a parallel federal case, but the federal court dismissed on the basis of statute of limitations as to RICO and lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to the remaining state claims. The federal appellate court affirmed. The district court granted law firm summary judgment, finding complaint barred by statute of limitations or insufficiently pleaded. The state court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the RICO claims were time-barred, since they accrued in 1989, when the wife filed the adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. The court rejected fraudulent concealment and equitable tolling defenses to the statute of limitations. There is apparently no prohibition, however, against a former spouse who has been thus deceived proceeding against the member (at least while everyone is still alive). Such a suit would not be interfering with the protected insurance policy, but punishing the contemptuous act of duplicity by the member. As with other matters involved in these cases, the key is adequate vigilance, especially by the former spouse, to be sure that what was negotiated or ordered was actually put into place, and no one attempts to fraudulently evade the orders, before anyone dies. e parties’ only child at the time of the divorce was approximately 18 months old. The wife remarried. The family then moved to Detroit. After Christmas visitation, the father refused to return the child. The mother filed a motion. The father alleged abuse because the child had been behaving in a manner that suggested that she had been sexually abused. The father also sent the child to a counselor. An evaluator was appointed. The referee ordered that the mother should retain custody. The father filed an objection. The district court reevaluated and concluded that there had been a drastic change, but failed to indicate what this change was. The district court, without a hearing, changed custody to the father. Legal custody involves having basic legal responsibility for a child and making major decisions regarding the child, including the child's health, education, and religious upbringing. Mack v. Ashlock, 112 Nev. 1062, 1067, 921 P.2d 1258, 1262 (1996) (Shearing, J, concurring); Hearing on S.B. 188 Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 61st Leg. (Nev., Feb. 12, 1981). Sole legal custody vests this right with one parent, while joint legal custody vests this right with both parents. Mack, 112 Nev. at 1067, 921 P.2d at 1262 (Shearing, J. concurring); Cal. Fam. Code §§ 3003, 3006 (West 2004)[2] (defining sole and joint legal custody). Joint legal custody requires that the parents be able to cooperate, communicate, and compromise to act in the best interest ofthe child. See Mosley v. Figliuzzi, 113 Nev. 51, 60-61, 930 P.2d 1110, 1116 (1997) (stating that if disagreement between parents affects the welfare of the child, it could defeat the presumption that joint custody is in the best interest of the child and warrant modifying a joint physical custody order); Hearing on S.B. 188 Before the Assembly Judiciary Comm., 61st Leg. (Nev., Apr. 2, 1981) (discussing that joint legal custody requires agreement between the parents). In a joint legal custody situation, the parents must consult with each other to make major decisions regarding the child's upbringing, while the parent with whom the child is residing at that time usually makes minor day-to-day decisions. See Mack, 112 Nev. at 1067, 921 P.2d at 1262 (Shearing, J., concurring) (discussing that the parents can bring unresolved disputes before the court); Hearing on S.B. 188 Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 61st Leg. (Nev., Feb. 12, 1981) (comments of Senator Wagner and Senator Ashworth) (discussing that both parents are involved with making major decisions regarding the children, and if they cannot agree, the courts will settle their disputes); Fenwick v. Fenwick, 114 S.W.3d 767, 777-78 (Ky. 2003) (explaining that in a joint legal custody arrangement, the parents confer on all major decisions, but the parent with whom the child is residing makes the minor day-today decisions), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Fowler v. Sowers, 151 S.W.3d 357, 359 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004), overruled on other grounds by Frances v. Frances, 266 S.W.3d 754, 756-57 (Ky. 2008), and Pennington v. Marcum, 266 S.W.3d 759, 768 (Ky. 2008). There are similarly large disparities in how the cost of survivorship benefits is paid. Some retirement plans, like the Civil Service system, allow one party or the other,3 or both parties together,4 to bear the cost of the survivorship benefits, so long as they are paid by way of reduction in the monthly retirement payments.5 Other plans, like those governed by ERISA, give no real choice in the matter; if the benefits are not waived by the spouse, then the sum payable during life is actuarially adjusted to compensate for the cost of the survivorship interest. Some courts have ruled that the 50% limitation is a payment limitation only, so that trial courts may award more than that amount - up to 100% of the retired pay - to the former spouse, but the pay center can only pay 50%, leaving the spouse to collect the remainder from the military member by other means (such as normal state court contempt proceedings if not paid)." The Department of Defense has concurred in this interpretation." One California court, surveying cases from around the country, held in 1999 that Mansell does not apply to post-judgment waivers of retirement pay at all, because Mansell held only that disability benefits could not be divided "upon divorce."1 Like many other retirement systems, PERS includes provisions for cost of living adjustments over time. Unlike most other systems, however, the COLA provisions can be (and usually are) fixed, unrelated to inflation, actual cost of living, or any other economic information. PERS provides for post-retirement cost of living adjustments, based upon the lesser of the CPI average or at 2% per year after three full years, 3% per year after six years, 3.5% per year after nine years, 4% per year after 12 years, and 5% per year after 14 years.3 The standard "time rule" formula seems simple enough - the spousal share is determined by taking the number of months of service during marriage as a numerator, and the total number of months of service as a denominator, and multiplying the resulting fraction by first one-half (the spousal share) and then by the retirement benefits received. Scenario six therefore is the same "default" as set out in scenario two, the only difference being that the base amount is lowered, from the entire retirement benefit, to only that portion of which 55% Footnote 30 of the Tomkins opinion obliquely notes this economic fact, and footnote 28 correctly notes the excesses set out in Formal Opn. 16. Justice Gibbons's dissent in that case makes precisely the same "client should be allowed a choice" point made by the bounds, and the court in the meantime (in Millen) has restated the importance of permitting clients to be able to secure counsel of their choosing. In other words, the dollars per month that the spouse would eventually collect only increases very slightly and slowly, and in the meantime, the spouse does NOT receive any part of the spousal interest accumulated up to that time. Given the realities of finite life expectancies, the spouse would usually not live long enough to realize any benefit to waiting for collection. This is even more certain when the time value of money is added to the calculation (i.e., investment/interest/present value calculations). 1. When a vacancy occurs before the expiration of any term of office in the Supreme Court or among the district judges, the Governor shall appoint a justice or judge from among three nominees selected for such individual vacancy by the Commission on Judicial Selection. The URESA court has jurisdiction to collect child support arrearages for obligees who are not recipients of public assistance. A claim for child support arrearages brought by an obligee parent after the subject child has attained the age of majority is the property of the parent who supported the child. 6) The term "spouse or former spouse" means the husband or wife, or former husband or wife, respectively of a member who, on or before the date of a court order, was married to that member. You can find Marren and Page Case List Public Employees Retirement System PERS Benefits Section III Subsection B C Factors to Consider in Deciding Whether to File in Federal or State Court The Marren and Page Case List Nixon v Brown and Schmanski v Schmanski Making the Bad Guys Pay How to Make the Left behind Parent and Counsel Whol Child Support exceeding the statutory presumed maximum Why those seeking a Nevada divorce should choose a board certified family l After Retirement The Marren and Page Case List Foster v Washoe County and Duff v Lewis The Marren and Page Case List Barrett v Franke Sly v Sly and Robison v Robi The Marren and Page Case List Breedlove v Breedlove Las Vegas Marshall Willick Rivero v Rivero Opinion Section VI Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Five Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Question of Outright Prohibition Support Flow The Marren and Page Case List Guardia v Guardia Hamlett v Reynolds Marren and Page Case List available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Child Support Initial Jurisdiction What Almost Happend to Child Support in Nevada and Why We Still Have to Fix Las Vegas attorney Marshall Willick Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders Temporary Domestic Orders What is Or Public Employees Retirement System PERS Benefits Section III Subsection B C The Marren and Page Case List Murphy v Murphy Harris v Harris Peavey v Peav Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Two |