 
|
The Marren and Page Case List Kelly v Kelly Todkill v Todkill Peters v Pete
Learn more about The Marren and Page Case List Kelly v Kelly Todkill v Todkill Peters v Pete.
B> The so-called "ten year" limitation is much misunderstood. A court order that divides military retired pay as property may only be directly paid from the military pay center to the former spouse if the parties were married for at least ten years during which the member performed at least ten years of creditable military service. 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d)(2); 32 C.F.R. § 63.6(a)(1)-(2). This is often called the "20/10/10" rule, for "years of service needed to reach retirement/years of marriage of the parties/years of overlap between service and marriage." The Court noted that NRS 123.080 provided that a husband and wife could not contract with each other alter their legal relations except as to property, and except that they may agree to an immediate separation and may make provisions for the support of either of them and of their children during such separation. The Court further noted that NRS 123.070 provided that husbands and wives could enter into contracts and that the general rules of contracts would control so long as no advantage was taken of the relationship of trust and confidence between them. The Court held that where a husband and wife entered into a contract requiring payment of alimony from the latter to the former, so long as there was no advantage taken of the relationship of trust and confidence existing between them, no public policy of this state was violated. The Court found that there was no record of abuse of the confidential relations between the wife and husband. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted that when relocation significantly impaired the other parent’s ability to exercise the responsibilities he or she had been exercising, it constituted substantially changed circumstances which justified a reexamination of custody based upon the best interest of the children, taking into account all relevant factors, including the effects of relocation. The Court held that the parent should retain primary custody and be allowed to relocate with the child if he or she showed that the relocation would be better for the child than a transfer of primary custody to the other parent. Primary custody should not be given to a parent who is not able or fit to exercise this right, or whose relationship with the child is such that the modification is not in the child’s best interest. Prior to the marriage, the husband acquired two A & W restaurants. The businesses were incorporated and all of the assets for the restaurants were transferred into it. Subsequent to the marriage, they obtained two more drive ins which was done primarily with the cash flow from the two premarital restaurants. The opinion included few other facts. The Court further held that an attorney-client relationship necessarily gave rise to a fiduciary relationship between an attorney and client, and all transactions that grew out of such a relationship were subject to the closest scrutiny, and that when an attorney entered into a business relationship with a client which was, by its terms, potentially advantageous to the lawyer, the Court would closely scrutinize such a transaction. Id. at 471. The Court additionally held that a fiduciary relationship also arose from the existence of the marriage itself, thus precipitating a duty to disclose pertinent assets and factors relating to those assets. A middle ground is possible. The Court could indicate that child support could only be ordered from a majority time-share parent to a minority time-share parent where the district court concluded that the child custody arrangement constituted "joint custody" where each parent was exercising between 40 and 60% custodial time. A) are owed by that member to the United States for previous overpayments of retired pay and for recoupments required bylaw resulting from entitlement to retire d pay; Quoting at length from a law review article analyzing the mathematics of the situation, the court found that acceptance of the husband’s argument would have allowed him to collect the entirety of the accumulating "earnings" on the marital property accumulated by both parties. Three judges dissented.5 D) the court order or other documents served with the court order certify that the rights of the member under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Reief Act of 1940 (50 U.S.C. App. 501 et seq.) were observed; and B> The so-called "ten year" limitation is much misunderstood. A court order that divides military retired pay as property may only be directly paid from the military pay center to the former spouse if the parties were married for at least ten years during which the member performed at least ten years of creditable military service. 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d)(2); 32 C.F.R. § 63.6(a)(1)-(2). This is often called the "20/10/10" rule, for "years of service needed to reach retirement/years of marriage of the parties/years of overlap between service and marriage." Both the drafting and the mathematical problems can be solved, but at a cost. The order can provide that upon actual retirement, and the resetting of the spousal share as a percentage of what the member actually receives, the spouse simply shares in the COLA increases provided to the member. This makes drafting muchsimpler, and greatly reduces the odds of further conflict between the parties, but at the cost of producing a result at variance from the logical implications of the case law. Normally, when parents live in different places, child support is set in accordance with the law of the residence of the obligor.4 But a military member may have an anomalous status under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act; if the member maintains his residence or domicile elsewhere than where he is stationed, that State might maintain exclusive modification jurisdiction, and the law of that State might control child support awards and modifications.5 Next, determine the member’s "home of record" with the military. According to the Legal Assistance Policy Division of the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps, the "Home of Record" is merely the state of residence of a member when the member entered the service of the armed forces. This may, or may not, be the same as the member’s domicile - the place that, when the member eventually goes "home," he will return to. In actuality, "Home of Record" is used for military purposes solely for the purpose of determining the amount of moving expenses that will be provided to a member and his family upon termination of military service. It can and often is changed, but sometimes members simply don’t get around to changing this notation for many years during active duty service. In 1987, the Legislature decided to have the legal interest rate "float," self-adjusting every six months to the prime rate at the largest bank in Nevada, plus 2%.2 The legislation itself was devoid of details as to precisely how such calculations were to be done, but some instructions were supplied by Nevada Supreme Court decisions before and after the statutory change.3 I> Courts throughout the country are in fair consensus hold 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, whether or not there is any federal mechanism for direct payment to the former spouse. Very few courts have reached the opposite result.Others have reached that opposite result, just to be reversed on appeal or upheld upon narrow findings of special circumstances. The USFSPA set up a federal mechanism for recognizing and enforcing state-court divisions of military retired pay, including definitions. One of these was of "disposable retired pay" (the sum that the military pay center could divide between spouses), which was defined as "the total monthly retired pay" minus certain sums, including sums deducted "as a result of a waiver of retired pay required by law in order to receive compensation under title 5 or title 38"5 or "equal to the amount of retired pay of the member under that chapter computed using the percentage of the member’s disability on the date when the member was retired" for a member retired under chapter 61.6 Once "federal jurisdiction" is obtained - by appearance, domicile, or residence (for purposes other than military assignment) - the forum court is fully empowered to deal with the retirement benefits as property, as it would any other asset within the jurisdiction of the court. It is good practice to recite the basis for jurisdiction over the service member on the face of the decree or other order dealing with the military retirement benefits." In 1999, the parties stipulated to an increase in child support from $3,000 to $4,000, to take effect in 2001, and for the father to pay for private school. In 2000, custody was changed to joint physical, but the support terms remained unchanged, and were stipulated to be "nonmodifiable" unless the mother tried to relocate out of Nevada with the children. The problem with such a resolution is that it leaves all parties uncertain as to their rights and obligations throughout the case, determining the value of the work by the retrospective opinion of strangers to the original agreement. If such factors are to be legitimately considered, as apparently they can, then persons should be able to contract relating to them with specificity as to the amount that would be owed based on a particular result achieved, before the fact. Relevant to this discussion is that the accountant assigned a value of zero to goodwill based on his opinion that the doctor’s role in the business amounted to a "non-marketable controlling interest." To illustrate, he asked, "Why would a purchaser pay more than fair market value of the tangibles if Dr. Gaskill can take her patients, go down the hall, and set up a practice?" You can find The Marren and Page Case List Kelly v Kelly Todkill v Todkill Peters v Pete Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION Model Decree of Divorce Clauses Dividing MRB The Analogous Cases Involving Early Outs Public Employees Retirement System PERS Benefits Section III Subsection B The Marren and Page Case List Milender v Marcum Cook v Cook and Guerin v Gu An Introductio to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section III Subsection C Motion to File Errata on Rivero Amicus Brief The Marren and Page Case List Mosley v Figliuzzi An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section I Subsection A FINALLY an SBP premium-shifting calculator for military cases revised New Developments in Jurisdiction military spouses Whether the Left Behind Parent was Actually Exercising Rights of Custody The Marren and Page Case List Sogg v Nevada State Bank Fick v Fick Dimick v Use and Abuse of Court Minutes The Marren and Page Case List Kelly v Kelly Todkill v Todkill Peters v Pete available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Carson City civil service retirement lawyer Division of Military Retirement Benefits in Divorce Section I The Marren and Page Case List Fick v Fick and Kantor v Kantor Why those seeking a Nevada divorce should choose a board certified family l The Marren and Page Case List In the Matter of Parental Rights as to J L N The Marren and Page Case List Lindsay v Lindsay Murphy v Murphy Hearing on the Petition for Return |
|
|