 
|
The Marren and Page Case List Kerley v Kerley and Sprenger v Sprenger
Learn more about The Marren and Page Case List Kerley v Kerley and Sprenger v Sprenger.
Community Property transmutation valuationSUP> In the U.S., common law marriage remained the norm in most of the country throughout its early history, presumably due to the size of the frontier and vast distances to government centers. The Spanish system of property ownership was, essentially, in place through much of the country prior in time to organized government. However, the Parkinson court disavowed Perri insofar as it required a showing of changed circumstances to modify a support order. Parkinson, 106 Nev. at 483 & n.l, 796 P.2d at 231 & n.l. The Parkinson court cited to NRS l25B.080(1 )(b) and (3) to support this proposition. Id. We conclude that the Parkinson court misread NRS 125B.080(1)(b) and (3). At the time of the Parkinson decision, as it does now, NRS l25B.080(1)(b) required courts to apply the statutory formula regarding any motion to modify child support filed after July 1, 1987. 1989 Nev. Stat., ch. 405, § 14, at 859. NRS 125B.080(3) stated that once a court had established a support order pursuant to the statutory formula, "any subsequent modification of that support must be based upon changed circumstances." 1989 Nev. Stat., ch. 405, § 14, at 859. The plain language of the statute at the time required changed circumstances to modify an existing support order that was properly ordered pursuant to the statutory formula. Thus, we now disaffirm the footnote in Parkinson, 106 Nev. at 483 & n.l, 796 P.2d at 231 & n.l, which states a party may seek modification of a support order without changed circumstances. Accordingly, Scott's reliance on this proposition is also erroneous. 107 Nev. at 840, 822 P.2d at 656. These notes provoked a remarkable response from all over the U.S. Apparently the problem is not confined to Nevada, although our reputation as a divorce Mecca probably makes the divorce mills here among the worst in the nation. UP> PERS is mainly a "non-contributory" system. Certain workers have paid in to "member’s contribution" accounts from the days when PERS had employee as well as employer-paid funding. That amount is refundable in certain circumstances, and may be applied to the (divisible) retirement in others. 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.4 In other contexts, courts have been much less sympathetic to arguments based on the parental preference doctrine.5 Many courts hearing such cases when Mansell was decided did exactly what the California trial court did on remand in that case, issuing opinions that detailed why they would not allow the inequity of allowing post-divorce status changes by members to partially or completely divest their former spouses, where the original divorce decree had been issued prior to the Mansell decision.4 parents here "agreed to an award of joint custody" and the family court judge specifically stated on the record that she found that the timeshare, as adjusted, was in the child's best interest because it maximized the child's time with each parent instead of at day care. Remanding for further findings regarding custody thus seems unnecessary. Examination of the practical effects of statutory interpretation has long been a hallmark of this Court’s holdings relating to appointments and elections. As early as 1924, this Court recognized that such interpretations are required to be practical and feasible, holding in State v. Jepsen8: This third matter was directly reported to the State Bar by me, to avoid any possibility that this office could be implicated in the ongoing sleaze. That was about six months ago; near as I can tell, there was not even an investigation; certainly, we were never contacted for any information on the matter. SPAN> Sly v. Sly, 100 Nev. 236, 679 P.2d 1260 (1984) At the time of their marriage, the parties each owned real property. During the marriage, the parties lived in the wife’s home. Mortgage payments were made on that property throughout the marriage. The primary source of these payments was apparently the proceeds from a craft business operated by the wife. The business had been purchased after the marriage with joint funds. The husband later began constructing a residence on his separate property lot, performing most of the work himself. The funds came from money withdrawn from a community savings account and the sale of his prior separate property residence. The district court made a finding that both parties’ separate property had been improved with community assets. The court found the community interest in the lot on which the husband’s residence was built included the value of the husband’s labor, and the value of the building materials used. No community property interest was found in the wife’s residence. The district court also found that the craft business had been transmuted from community property to separate property by the division of the bank accounts. After marriage, the parties lived in the wife’s home acquired prior to marriage. Mortgage payments were made on the property throughout the marriage. The district court found that the house was the wife’s separate property. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court held where part of the purchase price of one spouse’s separate property is paid with community funds, the community acquires a pro tanto interest in the property to the extent and in proportion that the purchase price is contributed by the community, citing to Barrett v. Franke, 46 Nev. 170, 208 P. 435 (1922). Completely separate statutory schemes govern administration of retirement benefits of members of the United States Armed Forces. On June 26, 1981, the United States Supreme Court In a State such as Nevada, with a presumptively equal property split, it would become a potential alimony factor, but perhaps factors such as "skill, personality, work ethic, reputation, and relationships" most properly belong in that analysis anyway. It isn’t much of a jump from those things to the "career asset" or "business acumen" that the Nevada Supreme Court has already directed courts to evaluate in making alimony awards. C) the court order or other documents served with the court order identify the member concerned and include, if possible, the social security number of such member; and Preliminary questions regarding whether a court can and will properly make a Hague Convention determination concern both choice of forum and the decision that is to be made. 65279;The attorney for the former spouse should try to provide for the court's continuing jurisdiction to enforce its award by means of post-divorce order. Virtually all of the things that could happen after divorce to change the expectations ofthe parties as to payments will work to the disadvantage of the former spouse, so it is that party who must make it as simple as possible to get back into court to correct later problems. And judges should consciously consider their jurisdiction to proceed before wading into the merits of cases, with sufficient knowledge of the jurisdictional rules both to understand what they should not do, and to ignore legally fatuous arguments based on indefensible attacks on their legitimate jurisdiction. If the agreed facts resolve a jurisdictional question, one way or another, the merits can be addressed; if not, the court should focus on convening such proceedings as are necessary to make the factual determinations that permit the jurisdictional call to be made promptly, economically, and correctly. UP> These limitations override State long-arm rules, and must be satisfied in addition to any State law jurisdictional requirements. Cases lacking such jurisdiction can go forward, but they will not result in enforceable orders as to the retirement benefits. The statute effectively creates an additional jurisdictional requirement, which for lack of a better title can be called "federal jurisdiction." 2007, that would have lowered child support for every bracket, even though there has been inflation for every year since 2001. The lowest bracket was reduced to $513. The AOC also concluded that the original statutory language had an "absolute maximum" of $800 for the top, "no limit," bracket, and therefore reduced the presumptive maximum for that bracket from $907 to $800. In Mississippi, pretty much the opposite approach to the mathematical construct of Alaska is directed, again by statute. There, courts are simply directed to deviate downward upon findings that expenses in the primary household have been "actually reduced" by the level of visitation/shared custody exercised by the other party. They are also directed to deviate upward upon findings that the non-custodial parent has no involvement with the child and so makes no direct contribution to the child’s expenses. Wyoming X The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court noted the district court had broad discretion to accept or reject the master’s report. The Court concluded that both Pereira and VanCamp had vitality and could be applied as circumstances warranted. The Court noted that the Van Camp method was inherently fair, and held that the district court’s application of the Van Camp method was substantially supported by the evidence. The case also gave tacit recognition to the proper methodology for conducting a Pereira calculation. The separate property portion is allocated a fair return. This fair return is the multiplied against the separate property portion. This number is then multiplied against the years of the marriage. SUP> In the U.S., common law marriage remained the norm in most of the country throughout its early history, presumably due to the size of the frontier and vast distances to government centers. The Spanish system of property ownership was, essentially, in place through much of the country prior in time to organized government. SUP> 2. It must clearly specify the amount, percentage, or manner of determining the amount of the allowance or benefit of the member or retired employee that must be paid by the system to each alternate payee. Former spouse coverage was not possible before 1983, and has evolved considerably over the years, as it was made no more expensive than current spouse coverage, and then stipulations to provide such coverage were made enforceable. When the former spouse found out about it, she tried to change the orders, but the retirement plan refused. When the worker dies, her benefits will simply stop. A malpractice action against the divorce lawyer is highly likely. For example, if the member was married to the former spouse for 15 out of 20 years of total service, and he married the later spouse a year after the divorce from the former spouse, then the equities would seem to clearly favor the former spouse, who would have a 75% marriage/service overlap, compared to the later spouse’s 20%. P> (4) No other state with jurisdiction. This provision was intended to act as a "catch-all" in the event no other state could exercise jurisdiction under the first three predicates. Because typically at least one state had and would assert either home state or significant connection jurisdiction, this section had limited application. You can find The Marren and Page Case List Kerley v Kerley and Sprenger v Sprenger The Concept of Divisible Divorce Las Vegas spousal law expert The Marren and Page Case List Emerich v Emerich Las Vegas family law expert Rivero v Rivero Opinion Pickerings Opinion Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section III Subsection family law jurisdiction Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Two Rivero v Rivero Opinion Section V The Marren and Page Case List Mizner v Mizner Simpson v ODonnell Barelli v The Marren and Page Case List Kerley v Kerley and Sprenger v Sprenger available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Nevada family law appeal lawyer The Marren and Page Case List Schwartz v Schwartz Jones v Jones Trent v Tre Las Vegas divorce family law expert Introduction to Nevada alimony and spousal support law The Marren and Page Case List Finley v Finley Family Law |