 
|
Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION
Learn more about Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION.
Rivero opinion conclusionIt should also be made clear that once child support has been established elsewhere, not every aspect of the support order may later be modified. The 2001 amendments made it clear that the duration of child-support obligation is fixed by the controlling order.7 In other words, the original time frame for support is not modifiable unless the law of the issuing State provides for modification of its duration. If the duration of child support was age 21 in the State from which the original order came, then the age for emancipation is 21 here, even if everyone has moved to Nevada, where the age is 18 (or 19, if still in high school).8 Particularly detailed was the discussion in Torres v. Torres,1 in which the Hawaii Supreme Court explained at great length how, at least in the Ninth Circuit, there is no such thing as "vesting" of survivorship benefits at the moment of retirement, in any person, and why the benefits accorded (or waived) in an earlier divorce decree should be distributed in accordance with such a decree. That court detailed why nothing in Hopkins, or any other prior case, could validly be interpreted as leading to any other result.2 the former spouse predeceased the member, then the following month the members share of the benefit would increase by one hundred percent of what the spouse was receiving, and instantly, automatically, and without the payment of any premium would gain an increase to $1,000 per month, for the remainder of the members life. This is the members "cost free" automatic survivorship interest in the former spouses life. It is built in to the structure of the retirement system. But on these facts, if the member died first, the former spouse would receive nothing further. SUP> In every contested case, there is some period of delay between the close of evidence and the formal entry of a decree, since the paperwork has to be drafted. The Courtfs previous remands have always directed the parties to the valuations and distributions of property made at the close of evidence; the only date referenced in Forrest was the date of trial, although the procedural history reflects that in that case motions were filed which tolled the date of final judgment for some time.7 It should also be made clear that once child support has been established elsewhere, not every aspect of the support order may later be modified. The 2001 amendments made it clear that the duration of child-support obligation is fixed by the controlling order.7 In other words, the original time frame for support is not modifiable unless the law of the issuing State provides for modification of its duration. If the duration of child support was age 21 in the State from which the original order came, then the age for emancipation is 21 here, even if everyone has moved to Nevada, where the age is 18 (or 19, if still in high school).8 Where the divorce precedes the time of the member making the CBS/REDUX election, the decree most probably would anticipate payment of the maximum possible sum of retirement benefits. Where the member, post-divorce, takes the election, and thus both obtains cash and reduces the value of the retirement benefits, the expected orders should be a distribution to the spouse of a share of the cash payment equal to the spousal share of the retirement benefits, or recalculation of the spousal share of the retirement, to increase it so that it would be equal to what it would have been if the member had not taken the election. Given the complicated calculation of a REDUX retirement, the first of these would be simpler. Court noted the statutory provision found in NRS 125.500 is known as the "parental preference" presumption. The Court held that it must be overcome either by a showing that the parent is unfit or other extraordinary circumstances. 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. The maximum amount of the standard SBP annuity for a beneficiary under age 62 or a dependent child is 55 percent of the elected amount of the members base retired pay1 as adjusted from time to time for cost of living increases.2 One year and one day after the divorce, the third former spouses rights would be secure. The first former spouse could go back to court at any time (prior to the members death) to get a valid order for SBP beneficiary status, and then serve the pay center. The second former spouse, however, whose rights were supposed to be "secured" by the judgment, would be entirely without a remedy (except a malpractice claim against the divorce attorney). The reason for not only permitting, but encouraging the use of such indemnification clauses was explained well by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Gatfield4: it basically ensures that the divorce courts are free to enforce the parties declared intent as a matter of contract law.5 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."6 As this Court discussed in the original Rivero Opinion, AD 424 was introduced in 1987, and at one point included a provision setting off child support for shared custody over a 40%) time-share threshold. The legislature considered a number of proposed hypothetical intended to reflect likely factual scenarios to which the guidelines would apply.' Ultimately, that provision was deleted; another provision) which ultimately became the statutory "ceiling" provision (called a "cap" in this part of the legislative history), was added." Does it contain language which provides that if a member dies before the alternate payee begins receiving benefits and a refund of the contribution account is payable, the alternate payee will be eligible to receive the specified share of the refund? The USFSPA is both jurisdictional and procedural; it both permits the State courts to distribute military retirement to former spouses, and provides a method for enforcement of these orders through the military pay center. The USFSPA itself does not give former spouses an automatic entitlement to any portion of members pay. Only State laws can provide for division of military retirement pay in a divorce, or provide that alimony or child support are to be paid from military retired pay.1 Rights granted by State law are limited by federal law, even if State law does not so provide, and even if the courts of the States do not see any such limitations.2 While courts have been uncertain how to characterize the nature of the SBP,3 those squarely addressing the question have concluded that a spouse is "to be awarded a proper share of both the former husbands military retirement plan and the survivor benefit plan," because of the "´potential unfairness to the wife should her former husband predecease her, thereby extinguishing pension rights."4 Some critics complain that such a formula gives the non-employee former spouse an interest in the employee spouses 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.1 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. In light of ongoing military actions and the greatly-increased number of deployed active-duty and Guard and Reserve personnel, it is necessary for any practitioner approaching a military divorce case to have at least some familiarity with the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act of 2003 ("SCRA").1 default, the military pay center ("DFAS") will always take the premium "off the top," and then split what remains according to the percentages set out in the order. In other words, the parties bear the premium cost in proportion to whatever share of the military retirement benefits they are receiving. The district court awarded joint legal custody of Russo's boy and Gardener's daughter because Gardner had placed himselfin a position of "loco parentis, "and that would be "devastating" to the boy to have Gardner treat him differently than his sister. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted its opinion in Hermanson v. Hermanson, 110 Nev. 1400,887 P.2d 1241 (1994), and its holding therein that "the doctrine of equitable adoption enunciated in [Frye], and the myriad of other psychological theories of parentage that the parties mention in order to determine paternity are inapplicable." ld. at 288. The Court further noted that "Frye was rejected by Hermanson as inapplicable for determining legal parentage in a custody proceeding." [citations omitted]. ld. at 288. The Court noted the man's claim that he never knew he was not the biological father, but also that he was not listed on the birth certificate, and the woman's claim that she told him he was not the son's father while she was pregnant. You can find Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Overview of Disability Benefits in the Military Retirement System The Marren and Page Case List Vincent L G v State Divorce of Child and Fami Concurrent Receipt this Entire Issue Is Destined to Go Away The Marren and Page Case List Reel v Harrison What Almost Happend to Child Support in Nevada and Why We Still Have to Fix The Marren and Page Case List Koester v Administrator of Estate of Koester Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Hedlund Amicus Brief CONCLUSION An Introduction to Pension in Nevada Divorce Law Section III Subsection C Las Vegas child custody expert The Marren and Page Case List Abell v Second Judicial District Court Cole v Welfares Critical Error Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section VIII CONCLUSION Child Custody Jurisdiction in Nevada The Marren and Page Case List McGuinnes McGuinnes Blaich v Blaich and Potte The Marren and Page Khaldy v Khaldy Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Three Section Two Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION |