 
|
Rivero v Rivero Opinion Pickerings Discussion
The formulaic approach is inconsistent with Nevada lawThe same considerations, and logic, apply in ________; the Court may in its discretion award fees in pro bono cases. We think such an award is merited, and leave to the Court’s discretion the sum that should be awarded for attorney’s fees in this case. The actual value of the services rendered is reflected on the billing summary attached to this submission. 8) Multiplying this amount for each parent by the percentage of time the other parent will have physical custody of the children. However, if the court finds that the percentage of time each parent will have physical custody will not accurately reflect the ratio of funds each parent will directly spend on supporting the children, the court shall vary this percentage to reflect its findings. bsp; b. Simple marital misconduct or fault are expressly to not be alimony factors, so alimony is not "a sword to level the wrongdoer" or "a prize to reward virtue." Courts have gone to considerable lengths to protect former spouses from the effects of members' post-divorce waivers of retired pay for disability pay, when such waivers partially or completely divested the spouses of sums that had already been awarded to them. The theory applied was phrased differently from one court to another, but was essentially that of constructive trust. Once a divorce was decreed dividing the "gross" or "total" or "all" military retirement benefits, the money awarded to the former spouse was no longer considered the member's property to convert. [fthe member subsequently applied for and received disability benefits, or took any other action to redirect money already ordered paid to the former spouse back to himself, he violated the divorce decree. In 1993, the Nevada Legislature approved AB 555, which basically emulated language in the ERISA/REA rules governing Qualified Domestic Relations Orders for private retirement plans. The new provisions required court orders dividing PERS benefits to be signed by a district court judge The Court noted jurisdictional grounds involve a specific fault or condition of a parent (such as abandonment of a child or unfitness of a parent) and dispositional grounds falls on the best interest. The Court felt it was improper to give the mother another chance and after she took advantage of that opportunity to still terminate her parental rights. B> IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the court intends to award to [FORMER SPOUSE] such a pre-retirement survivor annuity as may in the future be available in relation to [MEMBER]’s retirement benefits through the state retirement system (PERS), the court acknowledging that at the moment there is no such benefit available. The court expressly reserves jurisdiction to enter such future orders as may be necessary to carry this intention into effect. Until such time as [FORMER SPOUSE]’s interest as set out above is secured by the establishment of such a pre-retirement survivor annuity, [MEMBER] shall obtain and maintain a policy of life insurance on [MEMBER]’s life with [FORMER SPOUSE] as beneficiary and owner (or transfer an existing policy to such status) in a minimum amount of [APPROXIMATE PRESENT VALUE OF SPOUSAL INTEREST] and maintain such policy until the date on which [FORMER SPOUSE]’s interest in the retirement benefits set out above are fully secured by the putting into place of survivorship benefits fully protecting [FORMER SPOUSE]’s right to collect the sum specified above irrespective of [MEMBER]’s continued survival. The theory applied was phrased differently from one court to another, but was essentially that of constructive trust. Once a divorce divided the military retirement benefits, the money awarded to the former spouse was no longer considered the member’s property to convert. If the member subsequently applied for and received disability benefits, or took any other action to redirect money already ordered paid to the former spouse back to himself, he violated the divorce decree. b) If the minority time-share parent is exercising less time than 20%. determine if guideline support was reduced bv the presumptive maximum set out in NRS 125B.070. If so. the range of potential upward deviation for this factor is the difference between the gresumptive maximum and the percentage of income for support set out in NRS 125B.070(1 )(b). If not, the range of potential deviation for this factor is based on the trial court's determination of the increased costs being incurred in the majority time-share parent's household bv virtue of the lack of the minority time-share parent's visimtion. Some courts have refused to permit the member to effectively transfer non-reviewable custody to a third party while staying the non-military parent’s access to the courts for child custody.6 In other contexts, courts have been much less sympathetic to arguments based on the parental preference doctrine.7 Theoretically, lawyers can note the absurdity of such support figures, and judges can vary upward from them. The crush of the docket and the inherent ease of resting on defaults, however, makes variance rare even when non-custodial parents make several hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. In my experience, when variance is granted, the dollar sum of the change is often niggling, as judges require proof that "it's needed" rather than staying focused on the means of the obligor. The third scenario would have the former spouse pay the entire SBP premium. Using the same hypothetical facts, reducing the spousal share from 25% to 19.7861% would free the member from If the other State’s action was filed first, the Nevada action proceeds only if the Nevada action was filed within the time to answer or otherwise plead in the other State, the objection to jurisdiction is timely filed there, and Nevada is the child’s Home State. William Kennedy, participated in his employer’s defined contribution savings and investment plan (SIP). In 1971, William married Liv, and in 1974 he signed a form designating her as the survivor beneficiary under the plan, without naming a contingent beneficiary to take benefits if she disclaimed her interest. The plan in question permitted a participant to both designate a survivor beneficiary, and to replace or revoke that designation. The plan required "all authorizations, designations and requests concerning the Plan to be made by employees in the manner prescribed by the plan administrator," and provided the requisite forms. The plan also provided that if there was no surviving spouse or designated beneficiary upon death, the benefits would be directed by the estate’s executor or administrator. That some kind of adjustment should be made is based on the recognition that in cases of shared custody, each parent is directly paying part of the child's both fixed and non-fixed expenses. This does not mean, however, that for every dollar that the non- custodial parent pays in expenses, the custodial parent's expenses decrease, so that child support is a zero sum game. Rather, the total of expenditures by both parents increase with greater visitation by the non-custodial parent: non-custodial parent's expenses increase, and the custodial parent's expenses do not decrease by the same amount. This is result in predicated on the fact that each parent pays "redundant costs." Redundant costs are fixed expenses that both parents must pay, for example, a bedroom for the child, basic furniture and toys, housing expenses, utilities, etc. See, e.g., Travers v. Travers, 665 So. 2d 625 (La. Ct. App. 1995) (under shared custody formula, each parent is treated as a separate household with custody of half of total number of children, so that support reflects the cost of separate homes and savings from discontinuous custody). Child support guidelines at least implicitly recognize this point by providing that as the number of children in a family goes up, the amount of support devoted to each child goes down. The guidelines recognize that the amount needed to support two children is less than twice the amount needed to support one child, because certain household expenses are shared. It is this same point that must underlie the discussion of shared custody. Thus, while there should be some adjustment to the amount of support for shared physical custody, it is difficult for a child support formula to determine how much that adjustment should be. Bast v. Rossoff, 91 N.Y.2d 723, 675 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1998) (noting different methods used to accomodate redundant costs and problems inherent in each method). See Marygold S. Melli and Patricia R. Brown, The Economics of Shared Custody: Developing an Equitable Formula for Dual Residence, 31 Houston L. Rev. 544 (1994); Karen A. Getman, "A Critique of the Effect of Non-Traditional Visitation and Custody Arrangements on Child Support Awards UnderCurrent Guidelines and Formulas," in Essentials of Child Support Guidelines Development: Economic Issues and Policy Considerations 127 (Women's Legal Defense Fund, 1987). The Court departed from the "all or nothing" rule set out in Lake v. Bender, 18 Nev. 361, 4 P. 711 (1894). The Court held that the increase in the value of separate property during the marriage should be apportioned between the separate property of the owner and the community property of the spouses. Profit or increase in value of property may result either from the capital investment itself, or from the labor, skill and industry of one or both spouses or from both the investment of separate property and the labor and skill of the parties. Where both factors contribute to the increase in the value of a business, that increase should be apportioned between separate property and community property. The same considerations, and logic, apply in ________; the Court may in its discretion award fees in pro bono cases. We think such an award is merited, and leave to the Court’s discretion the sum that should be awarded for attorney’s fees in this case. The actual value of the services rendered is reflected on the billing summary attached to this submission. The former wife and children sought, in addition to litigating property purported to be held in join tenancy, to impress a constructive trust for the benefit of the children upon the proceeds of life insurance policies in the husband’s name. The district court entered judgment against the husband’s estate for accrued child support and interest in the amount of $46,219.96. The district court impressed a constructive trust over proceeds of life insurance, but limited that trust to $50,000. The district court found that the husband intended to provide life insurance for the benefit of the first wife and the children in the amount of $50,000, and that the court in its decree so intended. The former wife and children appealed from the ruling limiting the constructive trust to $50,000, contending that all life insurance proceeds should be subject to the trust. You can find Rivero v Rivero Opinion Pickerings Discussion The Marren and Page Case List Foster v Washoe County and Duff v Lewis An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section I Subsection A Rivero v Rivero Subsection 1 Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section VI Subsection A Family Court Public Employees Retirement System PERS Benefits Section II Subsection C Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section V Subsection Coping with COLAs Updates on Prior Notes Las Vegas child visitation expert The Marren and Page Case List Hay v Hay Western State Construction Inc v Mi Rivero v Rivero Opinion Pickerings Discussion available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map The Marren and Page Case List Peardon v Peardon Rush v Rush Applebaum v App Ely prenuptial agreement attorney CONCLUSION The Basics of Jurisdiction A Remedial Course Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Updates on Prior Notes The Marren and Page Case List Willmes v Reno Municipal Court Nevada QDRO lawyer Reciprocal Links: Rivero v Rivero Opinion Pickerings Discussion Rivero v Rivero Opinion Pickerings Discussion Rivero v Rivero Opinion Pickerings Discussion Rivero v Rivero Opinion Pickerings Discussion |