Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Three B

Learn more about Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Three B.

Defining primary physical custody

B> Among the reasons for wishing to "trade off" the retirement benefits for other assets are certainty, finality, and the lack of future entanglements obtained by reaching final settlement. This approach is only possible, irrespective of judicial preferences, when there are sufficient "other assets" from which to pay off the spousal share. Enlisted members, at least, usually do not accumulate sufficient cash or tangible property during military service. The Supreme Court reversed. As to the house, the Court noted that record failed to show how the community contributed to the purchase price. The Court further noted that if there been a mortgage on the house, and the wife had been able to prove that the principal on that mortgage was reduced by payments made with community funds, then she could have taken the position that the community acquired a pro tanto interest in the residence. As to improvements the Court noted that the record failed to provide substantial evidence that the improvements were made from community funds rather than from the husband’s separate funds. Second, there was no evidence in the record that these improvements increased the value of the house. The record appeared to indicate that the expenditures were for routine maintenance. The Court held that there was no substantial evidence in the record to support the ruling. As to the car, the Court noted that the mere oral expression by a spouse that a car purchased during the marriage is a "gift" to the other spouse does not attain the level of clear and certain proof necessary to overcome the presumption of community property citing to Milisich v. Hillhouse, 48 Nev. 166, 228 P. 307 (1924) The Court also noted that the opinion of either spouse is of no weight in determining whether property is community or separate citing to Bank v. Milisich, 52 Nev. 178, 283 P. 913 (1930). The Court held that district court’s finding that the presumption of community was overcome by clear and certain proof was unsupported by substantial evidence and had to be reversed. The first "break in the dam" was the modest "combat-related special compensation" or "CRSC," pay put in the 2003 Defense Authorization Act. It granted an additional payment to two (relatively small)1 categories of retirees: those with 20 or more years of service who were receiving disability compensation for which they also received a Purple Heart medal; and those with 20 or more years of service who were receiving disability compensation rated at 60% or higher as a result of injuries suffered in combat or "combat-like" training.2 As the majority notes, the mother filed successive motions to modify support. In connection with the first motion to modify support, the court minutes reflect that the mother reaffirmed what was represented in the stipulated decree-that "the parties [stipulated to] share joint custody," and that "the parties' incomes are similar." Both motions to modify relied on the alleged inconsistency between the agreement for joint physical custody and the timeshare provision. But read in conformity with the presumption in NRS 125.490, the stipulated decree was not irreconcilably inconsistent with joint physical custody. Further, any theoretical inconsistency was eliminated when the second judge modified the residential timeshare by substituting "Wednesday" for such additional time "as agreed on by the Parties," establishing a 4/3 timeshare that falls within the majority's 40-percent rule. Because neither of the underlying motions in this case identified a basis for modifying support besides the asserted lack of true joint physical custody timeshare agreement, further proceedings and findings, beyond those the original decree stated to justify its downward deviation, are unwarranted. Parenting Time Table. The TOTAL column represents the anticipated total out-of-pocket expenses expressed as a percentage of the Basic Child Support Obligation that will be incurred by the parent who will pay child support. The total expenses are the sum of transferred and duplicated expenses. The DUPLICATED column represents the duplicated expenses and reflects the assumption that when there is an equal sharing of parenting time, 50% of the Basic Child Support Obligation will be duplicated. The Number of Annual Overnights column will determine the particular fractions of TOTAL and DUPLICATED to be used in the Parenting Time Credit Worksheet. The provisions of the UCCJA are not in conflict; they provide that "reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard" must be give to any person who has physical custody of the child before entry of a final decree. [Insert local cite, or alter to refer to UCCJEA, if applicable]. Of course, such notice will be given under our proposed order, since notice of the substantive hearing will be given at the same time as the child is placed into temporary protective custody.2 paying any portion of the premium, directly or indirectly.1 The former spouse is still over-secured, as in the prior scenario, and the parties are still left in an unequal position regarding risks and burdens, since the member still has an entirely free survivorship interest on the spouse’s life, and she is paying the entire premium for the survivorship interest on the member’s life. This is the pet peeve of fellow AAML attorney Charles Abut of New Jersey, as it concerns what he considers lawyerly neglect of what is usually the single most valuable asset in a marriage. He recently posted the following on the ABA family law list serve: While CRSC is subject to garnishment for alimony and child support, it may not be attached for property payments. It is considered disability pay, and while it is determined in accordance with a separate disability value table (and varies in amount in accordance with the number of the member's dependents), it cannot exceed the sum of retired pay waived by the member for VA disability. Because it is not being phased in, CRSC will actually be around longer than CRDP - the latter will disappear as of 20 14, when the full amount of longevity pay is restored by the program. If we adjusted our retainer agreement to include language that we can pursue judgment of a lien through the case for which we are retained, will that be adequate to allow pursuit of the judgment without the necessity of filing an independent action? This is not to say that the case law has uniformly favored former spouses. Where counsel for the former spouse was not sufficiently careful in drafting the language of the decree, where the funds paid to the former spouse were not a portion of the retired pay but a sum meant to compensate the former spouse for her interest therein, and where no argument could be successfully made that the funds were necessary for the support of the former spouse, the former spouse’s interest has sometimes been found to be dischargeable. See In re Neely, 59 Bankr. Rep. 189 (B. Ct., D. S.D. 1986); In the Matter of Heck, 53 Bankr. Rep. 402 (B. Ct., S.D. Ohio 1985) (non-military case). The exceptions and anomalies to this line of cases are few and far between. In 1997, the Kansas Court of Appeals heard and decided In re Marriage of Pierce,2 a "double-divorce" case in which both parties were apparently fully aware of the retiree’s disability at the time of divorce. The court found that the law was so well developed by the time of the divorce that if the spouse had sought to protect against the conversion of retirement to disability benefits, she could easily have done so, explaining that it felt its result was required under Kansas state law statute of limitations. The dissent noted that the result reached was "patently unfair to former spouses."3 SUP> The holdings are nearly identical, using nearly identical language, whether or not the court is in a community property state.14 Decrees containing any variation of a "final award," or a "vested right" to a portion of property, or perhaps even "sole and separate property," are taken in the modern cases as setting up a vested right by the former spouse to a continuing flow of a given level of benefits that cannot be reduced by any action of the retiree, including the retiree’s post-divorce waiver of the benefits in seeking VA disability benefits. SUP> So while none of the Nevada opinions are truly explicit on the point, it can be said with fair certainty that the community ends on divorce, and for purposes of property division, "divorce " means the date of the trial. Illinois X B) An offset for parental time generally applies to every support determination whether in an initial determination or subsequent modification, whether or not previously given. C) Apply the parental time offset to adjust a base support obligation whenever the approximate annual number of overnights that each parent will likely provide care for the children-in-common can be determined. When possible, determine the approximate number based on past practice. issued its opinion in McCarty v. McCarty.1 The Court determined that state community property laws conflicted with the federal military retirement scheme, and thus were impliedly pre-empted by federal law. The majority held that the apparent congressional intent was to make military retirement benefits a "personal entitlement" and thus the sole property of individual service members, so the benefits could not be considered as community property in a California divorce. The Court invited Congress to change the statutory scheme if divisibility of retired pay was desired.2 The attorney for the member could argue that the chance of the member retiring at all is so speculative that the court should defer the issue until the facts are known, enter an "if, as, and when" order, or refuse to assign any value to the benefits at all.1 The wife filed for divorce. The husband made no appearance because at the time of service he was a member of the armed services stationed in California, and was later transferred to Japan. The district court ordered the husband to pay support of $100 a month for the two minor children. The husband later filed a motion to modify the decree by terminating alimony. The wife had an order to show cause issued on why the husband should not be held in contempt for failing to pay $3,663 in alimony, and why judgment should not be entered against him. The husband’s motion to terminate alimony was ranted, the husband was purged of contempt. The wife’s request for entry of judgment was denied. B> Among the reasons for wishing to "trade off" the retirement benefits for other assets are certainty, finality, and the lack of future entanglements obtained by reaching final settlement. This approach is only possible, irrespective of judicial preferences, when there are sufficient "other assets" from which to pay off the spousal share. Enlisted members, at least, usually do not accumulate sufficient cash or tangible property during military service. The 20/10/10 rule is not a limitation upon the subject matter jurisdiction of the state courts.2 Its practical effect is sometimes the same as a legal bar, however, which is one reason that the ABA position (for over a decade) has been that the provision should be repealed.3 A former spouse in possession of an order that does not satisfy the rule must rely on whatever state law enforcement mechanisms are available, which may or may not be of any use. The reality is that the "rule" often produces inequity, while serving no valid public policy purpose of any kind. i) if shared custody is based on the obligor parent having physical custody for periods of 30 consecutive days or more, the total annual award may be paid in equal installments over those months in which the obligor parent does not have physical custody; or Ms. Rivero then requested that the district court judge recuse herself. When the judge refused to recuse herself, Ms. Rivero moved to disqualify her. The Chief Judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court denied Ms. Rivero's motion for disqualification, concluding that it lacked merit. The district court later awarded Mr. Rivero attorney fees for having to defend Ms. Rivero's disqualification motion. The father had assaulted the mother and was later convicted of misdemeanor battery/domestic violence. The district court had held an evidentiary hearing. The district court changed custody to father. Because the father was found guilty of domestic violence beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court concluded that the incident qualified as an act of domestic violence. The Court found that there was no indication that the district court have due weight to or even considered the rebuttable presumption of NRS 125.480(5). The Court held the district court abused its discretion by failing to expressly consider all necessary components rebuttable presumption under NRS 125.480 that a person who, by clear and convincing evidence has committed an act of domestic violence that sole or joint custody is not in the best interests of the child. The change of custody to the father was The true breakthrough came with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004.3 Two programs were passed in tandem. First, CRSC was expanded to include all combat-related disabilities or operations-related disabilities,4 from 10% to 100% ratings, effective January 1, 2004, and extended to Guard and Reserve members. CRSC payments are explicitly defined as not being "retired pay."5 The blurring and blending of tests and terminology from the UCCJEA and the Hague Convention in the UCAPA seems likely to promote some confusion among courts and counsel as to what legitimate objectives and arguments might be raised in which kinds of proceedings. Counsel must be diligent in seeing that proceedings under all three laws remain focused on the legitimate objectives of the proceedings. Practitioners therefore must be careful in all reservist cases; they should be wary in a case involving reserve component service of any calculations that presuppose the typical "years of marriage divided by years of service" formula. Since point accumulation might have been intermittent, significantly different spousal percentages could be obtained by the two methods of figuring. Note that the amended (prior) regulations in 32 C.F.R. § 63.6 specifically directed dividing reservist’s retirements by points accrued during marriage, rather than duty time during marriage. That directive appears to have remained in all subsequent military guidelines, including the 2009 regulations.1 The Ford case maintained that a professional practice - even a solo business - has goodwill divisible upon divorce, even if the business is not salable. In that case, the expert proposed, and the Nevada Supreme Court approved, a valuation methodology based upon "three months gross receipts." Courts throughout the country are in fair consensus that a spouse can receive a share of any early retirement taken by a member, under the theory that the "early out" benefits are as divisible as the retirements that were given up to receive those benefits, despite the lack (for SSB and VSI) of any federal mechanism for direct payment to the former spouse.2 Other courts throughout the country have used similar language or reasoning to reach the same results regarding both programs.3 If the spouse dies before retirement (whether the parties are married or divorced), no spousal consent is needed to waive the SBP. If the spouse dies during marriage but after retirement, SBP premium deduction stops as soon as the military pay center is informed of the spouse’s death. The answer to that question is beyond the scope of these materials. It is hoped, however, that these materials will be of assistance in identifying both dangers and opportunities, and thus make dealing with retirement benefits in future divorce cases easier for the practitioner, and more valuable for the client. nbsp; G. Some Practical Points to Actual Collection of Child Support, Alimony, and Property Divisions From Military Members Where the kidnaper did not act alone, but had accomplices, there may also be facts justifying suit against all of them for general civil conspiracy, and even violation of state or federal RICO laws. If any of the wrongful actors were lawyers, who went beyond the role of simply representing a bad person, to the point of actively lying to a court, or facilitating a kidnap, or participating in the conspiracy to commit it, then allegations of negligence and ethical violations resulting in harm to third parties can be added, naming the attorneys, as well.1 It is true that in that in the recent updating of the ethics rules in the Ethics 2000 initiative, the substance of the old prohibition on contingency fees in domestic matters was not addressed. But this was because the Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility already had under submission a request to revisit Formal Op. 16 and the world of "results-achieved" bonuses and contingency fee agreements in domestic relations cases. The committee, in turn, could not act because it was aware of pending litigation (Tomkins) on the same subject matter. Despite the "will at least afford an opportunity" language in the legislative history, however, courts in some other States, such as California and Idaho, ruled that no common law remedy existed for such persons. These rulings led to passage of "window" statutes in some of those States, specifically permitting those divorced during the gap a limited time to relitigate the division or non-division of the retirement benefits." Nevada passed the first such statute, which expired after only six months, in 1983. Illinois enacted the most recent window period, which closed in January, 1989. There is a question whether the "broad discretion" accorded to trial courts in making property distributions under the pre-1993 law has been changed in any meaningful way by the change from "equitable" to "presumptively equal" division. The matter could probably be argued either way. There is plenty of authority for the proposition that the legislative change reduced the scope of judicial discretion to make unequal distributions, since legislative enactments are to be construed so that "no part of a statute should be rendered nugatory, nor any language turned to mere surplusage, if such consequences can properly be avoided."6 On the other hand, the new statutory construction still appears to be leave plenty of wiggle room. The proposed weighted formula known as the "Tonopah Formula" dates to 1997; the Family Law Section voted to ask district courts throughout the state to try actually running calculations under the formula, in parallel with their subjective determinations of alimony in real. cases, so that the data could be reviewed a few years later to determine the utility of that formulaic approach. Apparently, the follow-up was never done, and partisans on both sides of the debate have remained staunchly for or against a formulaic alimony analysis focused on the Tonopah formula model.

You can find Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Three B Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Five Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section IX Subsection B The Marren and Page Case List In the Matter of Parental Rights as to T M C Any Reimbursment to Separate Property for Monies Expended and Mandatory Dis The Marren and Page Case List Woods v Bromley and Smolen v Smolen Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar The Marren and Page Case List Guerin v Guerin Fernandez and Child Support fkgls The Marren and Page Case List Johnson v Johnson Pereira v Pereira Van Camp Checklist for Military Retirement Benefits Cases Time to distinguish enterprise and personal goodwill The Marren and Page Case List Vincent L G v State Divorce of Child and Fami The Marren and Page Case List Christensen v Christensen Peters v Peters and The Marren and Page Case List Sack v Tomlin The Marren and Page Case List City of Las Vegas v Las Vegas Municipal Court Child Support Initial Jurisdiction The Marren and Page Case List Cord v Neuhoff Child Support exceeding the statutory presumed maximum Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Three B available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above.

Site Map

What to Argue If Seeking to Prevent a Court with Jurisdiction from Exercisi The Marren and Page Case List Jones v Edwards Rivero v Rivero Opinion IV A Subsection Two The Marren and Page Case List Mack Ashlock Kennedy v Plan Administrator for Dupont Savings and Investment Plan The Marren and Page Case List Sogg v Nevada State Bank Fick v Fick Dimick v Nevada SBP lawyer

Reciprocal Links: Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Three B Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Three B Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Three B Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Three B