 
|
The Marren and Page Case List Barbash v Barbash
Learn more about The Marren and Page Case List Barbash v Barbash.
Property Settlement Agreement alimony and integrationThe majority found jurisdictional and dispositional grounds for termination existed and that the order terminating parental rights was based on clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court reversed a ruling of the district court that upheld a property settlement agreement where an attorney litigant was represented by counsel and his nonattorney wife was not. While the wife had consulted with an attorney and was given advice concerning the property settlement agreement, that attorney did not represent the wife in the divorce and the wife signed the property settlement agreement in proper person. The agreement at issue awarded the law practice to the attorney husband; however, no value for the practice was advanced by the attorney husband. Also, while per the agreement the attorney was awarded his income during the years 1990, 1991, and 1992, the agreement required him to be responsible for one-half of the income tax liability for those years. The Court concluded the attorney husband breached his duty for full and fair disclosure to the wife and that the agreement was fundamentally unfair. West Virginia X First, there could be no SBP award to the former spouse. The lifetime benefit stream will be divided as the court indicates, but the parties will be left in an unequal position as to risk, because if the member dies, the former spouse gets nothing, but if the former spouse dies, the member gets his share of the benefits, plus hers. 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% would equal the former spouse’s lifetime interest, in this hypothetical case, $454.55.2 Since the 6.5% premium is reduced to only $29.55, the member’s 75% of the $970.45 of remaining "disposable retired pay" yields $727.84, and the spouse’s 25% yields $242.61. The member effectively pays $22.16 toward the premium cost, and the spouse pays $7.39. There has been a large wave of pet custody cases in recent years, and more Courts are starting to realize the value of the emotional bond between a human and their pet. A New York Appeals Court granted custody of a pet cat "Lovey" as a condition that the plaintiff pay all vet expenses. The Plaintiff and Defendant in this case were not married, but were former roommates. When they wanted to go their separate ways, the Plaintiff sought permanent custody of his "property," i.e. "Lovey."1 The Supreme Court reversed. The California Code in effect when the divorce was finalized provided that a court could compel the husband to make suitable allowances to the wife for her support during her life or for a shorter period and may, from time to time modify its order in that regard. The Court noted that it is now was established California law that court power to modify did not exist if the property settlement and support agreement is integrated. The agreement was integrated. The Court noted that was established in California that the obligation to support under the provisions of such an agreement did not terminate on the death of the husband or the remarriage of the wife unless the agreement so provided. Third, taxpayer resources would be thrown away by repeating the very same appointment process again, less than three months after appointment, and before any meaningful review of the appointee’s ability and performance in the position could possibly be made. As a practical matter, can there be any doubt that after the waste of significant amounts of time, effort, and money, exactly the same person would be appointed to exactly the same position? B> When a child spends more than 109 overnights per year in the home of the parent from whom support is sought, that parent may retain a percentage of the primary support allowance and the parents' combined SOLA. To determine the credit, enter on Line 21A the percentage from the following table corresponding to the number of annual overnights. Then multiply the percentage by Line 19 ofTHE OTHER PARENT and enter the result on Line 21 B. If there are multiple children in different ranges, the percentages should be averaged. In all cases where the percentage is less than 50% the overnights must be evidenced by a Court order or written agreement, and Line 21 B shall not exceed their own SOLA obligation (Line 17a). c) Definition of a day. For the purposes of this section, "day" means a period of 24 hours; however, where the parent who has the fewer number of overnight periods during the year has an overnight period with a child, but has physical custody of the shared child for less than 24 hours during such overnight period, there is a presumption that each parent shall be allocated one-half of a day of custody for that period. SUP> Ms. Cooney did reveal that she was the current spouse of Judge Michael Fondi, but apparently never disclosed that the legislation could be used to undo this Court’s decision in the original Fondi case and dispossess the earlier former spouse of her interest in the retirement benefits.3 She also did not reveal that Judge Fondi had already filed a second appeal in this Court relating to those retirement benefits,4 which could be affected by the legislation. SUP> Whether or not another action has been filed elsewhere makes a difference. In a strictly default divorce situation when no other action is pending elsewhere, a Nevada court with jurisdiction over only one party can dissolve the marriage, but not adjudicate any rights as to alimony, child support, or child custody without obtaining personal jurisdiction over both parties.2 Where there is another action pending, granting a "status-only" divorce effectively bifurcates the action. Since this is forbidden under Gojack, one State must defer to the other under principles of comity and abstention. B) if, n the case of a member or former member not in receipt of retired pay immediately before that termination of eligibility fo r retired pay, the member or former member had retired on the effective date of that termination of eligibility. It was thought on passage of the 1991 amendments that the "no partition" bar was pretty complete. Some courts, however, have elected to disregard it, holding that the underlying state law of their state constituted a built-in "reservation of jurisdiction" to divide any omitted asset, including military retirement benefits. The line-drawing can be pretty fine. The husband inherited securities from his father. The title was later changed to the husband’s direction both parties as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The husband admitted to the presumption of a gift but claimed that it was rebutted because there was no donative intent, there was no delivery, and it did not become immediately effective. As to donative intent, the husband claimed that he only wanted to avoid the costs of probate. The wife testified that the husband expressed no such intention to her and he did not deny her testimony. Because of the martial difficulties the parties, were having at the time, the husband further contended that it would have been unreasonable to credit him with donative intent. The district court held that the securities were the husband’s separate property. The confusion stemmed from a series of Nevada Supreme Court opinions which seemingly advocated "equal distribution."1 At the same time, however, the Court had issued decisions rebuffing appeals from orders dividing property unequally.2 The Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted that disparity in income is a factor to be considered in the award of attorney fees. The Court found it was not clear that the district court took that factor into consideration and reversed for a reevaluation of the denial of attorney's fee. The increasingly clownish self-portrayals by our TV-advertising brethren have done plenty to erode public perception of law practice as anything requiring special skill or intelligence, or having particular value. Even those hell-bent on claiming that law practice is a "business" as opposed to a "profession" should see how such a trend is harmful to any effort to project and maintain the perceived value of legal services - and therefore their own eventual bottom lines. But such "practitioners" are too self-centeredly obsessed with short-term cashing in to care about the damage done to the future of the profession and the public it will serve. P> One point worth stressing is that an argument under this provision must be made in the State that has jurisdiction to make the custody determination - a party in Nevada cannot argue to a Nevada court that the other party, in some other State, should not be allowed to proceed there because of some alleged unjustifiable conduct. bsp; 2. Basic core is the judicial declaration that "Where it is alleged . . . and proven that there was an agreement to acquire and hold property as if the couple was married, the community property laws of the state will apply by analogy." PAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"> Very few courts have reached the opposite result. See McLure v. McLure, 647 N.E.2d 832 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). Others have reached that opposite result, just to be reversed on appeal or upon narrow findings of special circumstances. See Kelson v. Kelson, 647 So.2d 959 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994) (VSI held not divisible in split opinion); overruled, 675 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1996); Baer v. Baer, 657 So.2d 899 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995) (where service member given ultimatum to accept VSI or be immediately involuntarily terminated, VSI payments were severance pay rather than retirement pay, and not divisible); In re Kuzmiak, 222 Cal. Rptr. 644 (Ct. App. 1986) (pre-SSB/VSI case; separation pay received upon involuntary discharge pre-empted state court division). The fifth scenario presumes that the court wants to "equally divide" the premium, which would be accomplished by decreasing the spousal share to 23.2620%. This requires decreasing the spousal share somewhat from the default, and increasing the member's share somewhat, to cause a sufficient dollar adjustment so that each pays exactly the same amount toward the premium cost that the military will take "off the top." There is some equitable logic in this idea, although it still leaves the former spouse over-secured, in that the possible survivorship that each party might receive is maximized, and they equally share both the cost of the survivorship benefit that the member has on the spouse's life (i.e., none), and the cost of the survivorship benefit that the spouse has on the member (the only survivorship benefit that has a cost associated with it). We conclude that the district court properly disregarded the parties' definition of joint physical custody because the district court must apply Nevada's physical custody definition-not the parties' definition. We also conclude that the district court abused its discretion by not making specific findings of fact to support its decision that the custody arrangement constituted joint physical custody and that modification of the divorce decree was in the best interest of the child. Dept. of Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 92 P.3d 1239, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. 50 (July 12, 2004) The child was born to a couple with substance abuse problems. The child had no contact with his natural parents since he was eighteen months old. The child came into DCFS custody when he was three years old, and since that had been to three foster homes and four group homes. On three occasions, the child was committed to psychiatric facilities for self-inflicted wounds and violence against others. The child had a history of being physically and sexually abused and suffered from various mental disorders. In February 2000, the child was placed in a foster home and his development was monitored. The child was also enrolled in Reaching Our Community Kids (ROCK) program, an after-school rehabilitation service designed to develop social skills in children. In October 2003, the social worker wrote a report on the child. The report acknowledged the child’s continuing behavioral problems, and noted that the child should remain in his current foster placement. Indiana X and governed by, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, known as "ERISA,"1 codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. ERISA was substantially modified and refined in 1984 by the Retirement Equity Act ("REA"),2 which provided that certain domestic relations orders, containing specific terms, must be accepted and honored by ERISA-qualified pension plans. Presume that a couple live together in marriage for ten years before they separate. The parties discuss reconciliation and possible divorce terms, but after six months, it becomes clear that the split is permanent, and one of them files for divorce. The divorce turns out to be a messy, acrimonious matter which proceeds through motions, custody evaluations, returns, etc., for another year and a half, when the parties finally get to trial and are declared divorced. Also presume that the employee spouse accrues a retirement during marriage providing exactly $1,000 after 20 years. Reversing the incomes on the same time-share facts, the proposed deviation would greatly expand the relative resources available for the minority time-share parent and child during that 43% time share, while the deviation would have no significant impact on the majority time-share parent¡¯s household. On those facts, the deviation would be granted. The comments make it clear that the statutory language is intended to deal with where the people involved actually live, not with any sense of a technical domicile. Regardless of whether a State considers a parent a domiciliary, the State loses exclusive, continuing jurisdiction after the child, the parents, and all persons acting as parents have moved from the State. The majority found jurisdictional and dispositional grounds for termination existed and that the order terminating parental rights was based on clear and convincing evidence. Casas v. Thompson1 was a clear restatement of the law regarding military retirement benefits division as it had evolved in California prior to 1988, which was followed by several other States. It was a partition case ten years after entry of a divorce decree that had not mentioned the retirement. Ultimately, the spouse was granted partition of the omitted retirement from the date she filed her petition, but no arrears. The Court of Appeals affirmed with a few modifications not important here.2 There is little excuse today for divorce lawyers failing to deal with pension benefits. Pensions have been recognized as community property for many decades,1 and that recognition was extended to unvested and unmatured pension benefits long ago.2 Statutory and case law throughout the country now recognizes pension benefits as marital property with near-uniformity. Rationales for that recognition usually include that the benefits accrued during marriage, that income during marriage was effectively reduced in exchange for the deferred pension benefits, and that the choice was made to forego possible alternative employment which would have paid more in current wages, in order to have the pension. 65279;The fonner spouse is taxed on Survivor's Benefit Plan payments as he or she would be for other payments from an annuity?" The payments to the former spouse are taxable income. It is the far better practice to deal with pensions during the divorce itself, instead of deferring the matter to be dealt with "later." Some states do not clearly permit a spouse who does not receive a portion of pension benefits to bring a partition action at a later date to divide those benefits, and the Nevada law on the subject still contains some contradictions.3 An extremely lengthy opinion. On August 4, 1945, the husband filed an amended complaint for divorce. It was alleged there were no property rights to be adjudicated. On May 1, 1941, the husband transferred, assigned, made over, and conveyed to his wife all right, title, and interest in and to certain inventions and improvements in connection with the detection of and protection against submarines and torpedoes, called the Navigation Instrument Company together with his interest in a certain agreement dated April 22, 1940, executed between him, and two other partners. One of the considerations for the assignment and transfer as stated by the husband was that the wife "had been through hell and that she was a peach." There was a significant history of violence of the husband toward the wife. On or about September 21, 1943, the district court found that by duress, coercion, undue influence, fraud, personal abuse, threats and force from the husband toward the wife, the wife transferred to the husband one-half of all profits, bonuses, or other distributions derived from the stock of the Navigation Instrument Company registered in her name, The following paragraph 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 (NOTE: this only applies if the Member dies before retirement without a spouse or eligible survivors under NRS 286.671-286.6791). Shelton v. Shelton, 119 Nev. ___, 78 P.3d 507 (Adv. Opn. No. 55, Oct. 29, 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 1716 (2004), involved a stipulated decree calling for the former spouse to receive a certain sum of money out of the military retirement benefits each month. After divorce, the member applied for and received disability benefits, which requires a dollar-for-dollar waiver in retired pay. This had the effect of increasing the sums paid to him (he got the disability pay plus his portion of the reduced retired pay) while decreasing the sums paid to the former spouse. The Nevada Supreme Court followed a "contracts" approach that has been applied in Virginia and Louisiana, in deciding that a military retiree "cannot escape his contractual obligation by voluntarily choosing to forfeit his retirement pay," and that the former spouse was therefore entitled to continue receiving what she would have received but for the waiver of retirement for disability pay. The Court stated its intent to interpret the parties’ ambiguous and contradictory settlement so as to yield "a fair and reasonable result, as opposed to a harsh and unfair result," noting that the husband appeared to have ample other assets than his military retired pay with which to satisfy his payment obligation, and that even if he did not, federal law was no bar to enforcement of his agreement to use his disability payments to satisfy his obligation. You can find The Marren and Page Case List Barbash v Barbash Child Custody Feral paralegals part 2 The Left Behind Parents Rights of Custody The Marren and Page Case List Kelly v Kelly Todkill v Todkill Peters v Pete What is Considered Community Property Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Part Two Subsection III B The Marren and Page Case List Slack v Schwartz Adams v Adams and Swan v Swa Joint Titling Gift or Separate Claims Still Allowed Tracing The Marren and Page Case List In the Matter of Parental Rights as to Q L R The Marren and Page Khaldy v Khaldy The Marren and Page Case List Sogg b Nevada State Bank Fick v Fick Dimick v The Marren and Page Case List Sertic v Sertic Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section III Subsection Fees incurred on appeal can be awarded Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Child Custody Initial Jurisdiction Marren and Page Case List The Marren and Page Case List Fick v Fick and Kantor v Kantor Actual Policy Based Comparison of Calculations The Marren and Page Case List Barbash v Barbash available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Marren and Page Case List Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section B The Deflected Attempt to Conform the Law to Error Division of Military Retirement Benefits in Divorce Section I Reno child support expert Getting the Kids Home What to File |