 
|
Present Value A Bird in the Hand
Learn more about Present Value A Bird in the Hand.
Trading the Present Value of the Retirement BenefitThe need for such adjustments is obvious. In January, 1972, the government’s Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) was 123.2, meaning that by comparison with the base year of 1967, it took an extra $23.20 to have the same purchasing power that $100 had commanded.1 Put another way, dollars were worth only 81¢. By January, 1992, the CPI-U was 413.8, meaning that it took an extra $313.80 to gain the purchasing power of the original $100, or that each dollar was worth only 24¢. If there had been no cost of living adjustments, a $1,000 per month retirement starting in 1972 would only be paying the equivalent value of $240 per month in 1992. Inflation has continued, cumulatively, since that time. The USFSPA has included a savings clause since its original passage, intended to prevent misapplication of the law to subvert existing divorce court orders: It would be an error to directly compare post-Mansell cases with those concerning divorce decrees issued prior to Mansell. Courts that have reviewed decrees issued after 1989 have often held the language used in the decree to a higher standard of clarity. This is reasonable, since after Mansell it would be at least theoretically possible for a divorce court to anticipate the question, and issue an order specifically intending to permit or forbid a post-divorce recharacterization of retirement benefits into disability benefits. On appeal, the husband sought to have court find the parties remained married so that wife’s property transferred to him. The Court held that the district court could modify property or alimony terms without vacating the divorce itself, under the concept of divisible divorce, without violating NRS 125.130. The majority opinion reversed the property provisions of the default decree but left the divorce itself in place. The Court held this result was compatible with Gojack v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 95 Nev. 443, 596 P.2d 237 (1979). The Court appeared to base much of its result in equity by stating: ". .. Wayne now desires to posthumously confer the status of a deceased wife upon Kathleen in order to retain her share of the community property. To permit him to do so would engage the judicial process in an affront to equity. This we refuse to do." Id. at 976-77. The Court also noted that "equity considers as done that which ought to be done." Id. at 978. Partial dissent by Young and Rose, who would have held that setting aside a default decree of divorce did leave the parties married, along with providing a variety of quotable dicta on the oppressiveness of attorney’s fees. One litigant came to us to try to get the custody and support terms fixed after that outfit had screwed up a case. We took the time to detail just what and how badly they had done, in a letter to the Bar. The Bar ultimately sent a "letter of caution" to the "supervisor," altering exactly nothing in their advertising, operations, or ongoing harm to the public. Since then, we have fixed three similar messes they have made. This was apparently the scenario contemplated when the SBP was created in 1972, to provide a monthly annuity to spouses and dependents of retired members of the Uniformed Services. It largely replaced an earlier survivor’s plan known as the RSFPP,1 which is of little importance here. All members entitled to retired pay are eligible to participate in the SBP,2 under which a survivor’s annuity is payable after a member’s death.3 It has since then been made clear that the "workshop" had nothing to do with figuring out what might be mathematically and legally correct, but was the announcement of a "done deal" that Welfare would do what NOMADS was capable of doing, irrespective of logic or consequences. As explained by Deputy District Attorney Edward Ewert in his revision and expansion of the Child Support section of the Nevada Family Law Practice Manual:3 65279;First, their retirement benefits multiplier was reduced by one percentage point for each full year less than 30 years of service." Under this plan, at age 62, the reduction is removed and the retired pay multiplier is restored to 2.5% per year, yielding the same percentage payable under the earlier system." The need for such adjustments is obvious. In January, 1972, the government’s Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) was 123.2, meaning that by comparison with the base year of 1967, it took an extra $23.20 to have the same purchasing power that $100 had commanded.1 Put another way, dollars were worth only 81¢. By January, 1992, the CPI-U was 413.8, meaning that it took an extra $313.80 to gain the purchasing power of the original $100, or that each dollar was worth only 24¢. If there had been no cost of living adjustments, a $1,000 per month retirement starting in 1972 would only be paying the equivalent value of $240 per month in 1992. Inflation has continued, cumulatively, since that time. 1. In accordance with subsections (9) and (10), calculate the amount of support obligation apportioned to each parent without including day care and health insurance Jones is also in the group of cases explaining that Mansell calls on courts to essentially take a snapshot at the time of divorce, when the award to the spouse is made. Any disposable retired that was already waived in favor of disability pay up to that point is not divisible, but any attempt by the The wife argued that the commingling of the community and separate property was so extensive that the husband failed to sustain his burden that the separate property was not transmuted into community property. The district court declined to accept the wife’s contention. SPAN> As time passes, and the number of living persons with McCarty-gap divorces decreases, it becomes ever less likely that additional states will pass window statutes. B> Military retirement benefits are so central to any divorce involving those assets that practitioners cannot afford to not know a great deal of the detail required to provide for their adequate disposition. It has become increasingly important for domestic relations practitioners to learn all aspects of relevant retirement plans, and to develop appropriate valuations for those assets, with thoughtful written contingencies for all matters that could vary, including tax, survivorship, and related issues. Only then can counsel intelligently negotiate - or litigate - their clients’ interests in such retirement benefits. Under NRS 1.230(4), "[a] judge or court shall not punish for contempt any person who proceeds under the provisions of this chapter for a change of judge in a case." Contempt preserves the authority of the court, punishes, enforces parties' rights, and coerces. Warner v. District Court, III Nev. 1379, 1382-83,906 P.2d 707,709 (1995). On the other hand, the district court's discretion to award attorney fees as a sanction under NRS 18.010(2)(b), for bringing a frivolous motion, promotes the efficient administration of justice without undue delay and compensates a party for having to defend a frivolous motion. This change made a huge difference in the payments received over a lifetime, but it only affected divorces final on or after February 4, 1991. All prior cases continued to be governed by the older rules (i.e., the sum payable under divisions of disposable pay as previously defined remained in effect), and any variation between intent and effect could only be changed case by case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, SPOUSE shall have no interest whatsoever in said military retirement benefits as community property or her separate property, having waived said rights on condition and in exchange for a stipulated Order of this Court for an award of unmodifiable alimony for her support, beginning the first day of the first month following MEMBER's retirement or attainment of eligibility for retirement (or any other form of compensation attributable to separation from military service), [AL T beginning the first day of the first month following entry of this decree, or insert agreed date] in an amount equal to __ % of the military retirement benefits to which MEMBER is or would be eligible upon retirement or eligibility therefor, [ALT2 in the sum of SPAN> Six weeks after the effective date of the statute, this Court in Sertic specifically ordered that allspousal shares of retirement benefits are to be distributed to spouses upon members’ first eligibility for retirement.3 Accordingly, the Section anticipated a quick court challenge. But the statute in its watered-down form lay, virtually ignored by Bench and Bar for the next 13 years, and the few times it was made an issue at trial it apparently never went up on appeal, until now. And counsel looking out for their own enlightened self-interest should pay attention to this point. Now-retired attorney Edwin Schilling of Colorado estimated that 90% of his malpractice consultations involved failure to address survivor beneficiary issues. Lawyer’s Weekly USA, Oct. 18, 1999, at 22 (99 LWUSA 956). My experience has been similar - I have been hired as an expert witness in several such cases in the past several years, in which liability was sought against practitioners who were alleged to have not properly seen to securing retirement or survivorship benefits for a spouse. 5. The parent owing the greater amount of base child support shall pay the difference between the two amounts as a child support order. In no event shall the provisions of this paragraph be construed to authorize or allow the payment of child support by a parent having more than two hundred five (205) overnights. In Torwich (Abrom) v. Torwich,3 the court found the reduction of payments to the spouse to be an "exceptional and compelling circumstance" allowing redistribution of marital property four years after the divorce, despite the existence of procedural rules normally barring such redistributions of property. This case has been relied upon for the proposition that Mansell permits "other adjustments to be made" to take into account the reduction in a spousal share from the disability claim of a member, so as to prevent the inequity that would occur if a member was permitted to redirect money from the former spouse back to himself, without some form of compensation.4 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." The husband claimed and the wife admitted that she had personal property that belonged to the husband prior to marriage. The district court ordered that "each party shall have their [sic] own personal property, which is in their [sic] possession, as their [sic] sole and separate property." The Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted while NRS 125.150(4) provided that the separate property of a spouse may be awarded to the other spouse for support, there is no indication that the district court intended to make such an award in this instance. The Court held that it was error for the district court to fail to order that the personal separate property of each party be returned, absent some finding that the property must be awarded as support. You can find Present Value A Bird in the Hand Las Vegas spousal law lawyer The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Steward v Steward and Wallace v Wallace Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar The Marren and Page Case List Bauwens v Evans CONCLUSION Disability Benefits and Concurrent Receipt A A Brief History of Military Retirement Benefits in Divorce Litigation Reserve Component SBP The Marren and Page Case List Oren v Deptartment of Human Resources The Marren and Page Case List In re Swall Hedlund Brief Amicus Discussion of Issues FERS expert lawyer Las Vegas FERS expert lawyer The Marren and Page Case List Sprenger v Sprenger Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section V Subsection The Marren and Page Case List Murphy v Murphy Harris v Harris Peavey v Peav Present Value A Bird in the Hand available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map The Marren and Page Case List In the Matter of Parental Rights as to Q L R How to Allocate the SBP Premium Cost-Shifting Fees incurred on appeal can be awarded The Marren and Page Case List URESA jurisdiction Love me Love My Dog Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Four B Service Members Life Insurance |