 
|
The Marren and Page Case List Lake v Bender Milisich v Hillhouse Jones v Ed
Learn more about The Marren and Page Case List Lake v Bender Milisich v Hillhouse Jones v Ed.
Where a court does decide to deviate because of extraordinary visitation, the court may deviate only for those expenses above and beyond the expenses that the guidelines presume the noncustodial parent will pay. In other words, since the guidelines assume 20% custody in the basic figures, where parents share custody 50% 50%, the adjustment should be only the extra 30%, not 50%. Prosser v. Cook, 185 Wis. 2d 745,519 N.W.2d 649 (Ct. App. 1994). See also Matula v. Bower, 634 N.E.2d 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (court would not deviate additionally for father's claimed clothing, medical, and education expenses, where court already reduced presumptive award by 10% to account for expenses associated with extended visitation). The first variable in how the guidelines approach "shared custody" is how the term "custody" itself is defined. First, some states' guidelines define custody in terms of overnight visitation: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Tennessee, Wyoming. Second, other states' guidelines define some custody as being with the non-custodial parent a percentage of time: Alabama, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia. Third, some states' guidelines define custody in terms of a percentage of the year the child spends with the non-custodial parent: New Mexico, Vermont, Wisconsin. Two states define custody as a day. The parties had a short marriage which produced two children. They divorced in 1998, at which time they were doing well financially, owning two homes and with no debt. The father was a day trader earning a minimum $500,000 per year, and the mother also worked in the securities industry. The mother had primary physical custody, and the father voluntarily paid $3,000 per month in child support, plus the costs of a housekeeper, nanny, and all medical expenses for the children. Arkansas X The TSP will also honor post-decree orders, which it refers to as "amendatory court orders," and which presumably include nunc pro tunc amendments to decrees and partition judgments relating to omitted assets. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court noted that NRS 125.150 only required that an alimony award be "just and equitable." The Court held that there was no abuse of discretion for the award and noted that a district court should not be held to a mathematical certainty in all cases. Where a court does decide to deviate because of extraordinary visitation, the court may deviate only for those expenses above and beyond the expenses that the guidelines presume the noncustodial parent will pay. In other words, since the guidelines assume 20% custody in the basic figures, where parents share custody 50% 50%, the adjustment should be only the extra 30%, not 50%. Prosser v. Cook, 185 Wis. 2d 745,519 N.W.2d 649 (Ct. App. 1994). See also Matula v. Bower, 634 N.E.2d 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (court would not deviate additionally for father's claimed clothing, medical, and education expenses, where court already reduced presumptive award by 10% to account for expenses associated with extended visitation). State statutes and cases express different preferences for the possible "cash out/exchange" and "if/as/when" division methods of allocating retirement benefits. When reviewing the language of divorce decrees issued after Mansell (i.e., after 1989), courts (especially in earlier years) sometimes examined the decrees at issue for "safeguard" clauses or "indemnification for reduction" clauses, as necessary indicators of intent to protect spouses from members recharacterization of benefits. Where such intent was found, even by implication, the member has been required to reimburse the former spouse for all sums his actions caused to be redirected from the former spouse back to him.2 Accordingly, if it is deemed necessary to pick up the child at the time of service of the Petition for Return, to secure the childs safety during the pendency of proceedings, counsel should prepare and file a separate Petition for Warrant in Lieu of Writ of Habeas Corpus, a proposed Order for Issuance of Warrant in Lieu of Writ of Habeas Corpus, and a proposed Warrant in Lieu of Writ of Habeas Corpus. If the court hearing the matter is unfamiliar with procedures, it might also be a good idea to either flesh out the Petition for Warrant, specifying in detail the grounds under which it may be issued, or file a separate brief on the subject. 1) If, in the case of a member or former member of the armed forces referred to in paragraph (2)(A), a court order provides (in the manner applicable to a division of property) for the payment of an amount from the disposable retired pay of that member or former member (as certified under paragraph (4)) to an eligible spouse or former spouse of that member or former member, the Secretary concerned, beginning upon effective service of such court order, shall pay that amount in accordance with this subsection to such spouse or former spouse. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court noted that the County and the named workers had immunity for discretionary, but not ministerial acts. Acknowledging that the conduct of such an investigation "involves numerous decisions on possible approaches," and that "there may be internal departmental operating procedures," the Court concluded that a child abuse investigation is "inherently discretionary" as it involves "personal deliberation, decision and judgment." The Court also found public policy reasons to shield workers from fear of "retaliatory lawsuits" which could diminish the states interest in preventing child abuse, and found the workers and CASA program shielded by quasi-judicial immunity. 65279;Most states approving in-kind divisions have adopted the "time rule," discussed above. Precise language is very important in an in-kind division case. It is not enough to merely recite that the former spouse should receive, e.g., "forty percent of the retired pay." Especially for the former spouse (for whom a mistake is more likely to result in partial or total loss of benefits), it is necessary to consider all of the things that can go wrong, at the time of divorce or later. Perhaps more useful is the member's DD-2058 form on file with the military, which is the member's "State of Legal Residence Certificate," or legal residency form. Again, questions must be asked about when the form was filed, and why, which may have greater or lesser relevance to traditional notions of residency and domicile. Joint physical custody may ideally signify something approaching a 50/50 timeshare. However, I am concemed that our judicially mandated 40-percent formula will prove unsatisfactory, especially when used, as intended, to determine support and relocation disputes. Lives change and a child's time is divided, not just between his or her parents, but among friends, school or day care, extended family, sports, and other pursuits. Practical questions seem certain to scuff the bright-line rule-questions like how to count hours the child spends with people besides either parent, or which parent to credit for time the child spends pursuing activities both parents support. Of greater concern, making child support, relocation, and custody determinations depend on parents keeping logs of the number of hours each year a child spends with one parent or the other (leaving aside the calculation and credit questions) detracts from the type of true co-parenting our statutes try to promote. See NRS 125.460; NRS 125.490; see also In re Marriage of Birnbaum, 260 Cal. Rptr. 210, 214-15 (Ct. App. 1989) (dismissing as a "popular misconception" the idea "that joint physical custody means the children spend exactly one-half their time with each parent"; noting that "[p ]arents' demands for equal amounts of a child's time [ can] constitute a disservice to the child"; and that, while "[i]n some cases the nature of the relationship between the parents may necessitate this kind of inflexibility[ u]sually it is temporary, and when the former spouses have adjusted to their new and limited relationship ... mathematical exactitude of time is no longer necessary"); Rutter's, California Practice Guide to Family Law, 7:358 (2009) (noting that "[a] joint custody order does not mean the child must equally split all of his or her time between the parents"); see also Mosley, 113 Nev. at 60,930 P.2d at 1116 (noting that "NRS 125.460 dictates the public policy of this state in child custody matters [which is] that the best interests of children are served by frequent associations and a continuing relationship with both parents and by a sharing of parental rights and responsibilities of child rearing") (internal citations omitted). to military pensions." The court distinguished Kirby v. Mellenger1 (discussed elsewhere at some length) as having been decided "in circumstances quite different from those at bar" because it was a diversity case instead of a federal question case. The court rather obliquely remarked that the result it reached "may be lamentable," but found dismissal was required as a matter of federal question jurisdiction.2 The parties were married May 1963. During the marriage, the parties started aconstruction company. During the trial, the wife introduced into evidence the construction companys financial statement. According to the statement, the net stock value of the company was $105,449. The husband conceded that the $700,000 gross income figure contained in the financial statement for the preceding ten month period was probably correct. The husband also testified that the companys accounts payable at the time of trial exceeded the accounts receivable by approximately $20,000 and that if everything was sold, he hoped the companys assets would cover its liabilities. The district court found that the communityowned business, the construction company, was valueless and awarded it exclusively to the husband. Surprisingly, the answer appears to be "no." It is by far the better practice to have all retirement orders - including QDROs - prepared, executed, and filed on the same day as the divorce is entered (nevertheless before someone dies). Where, for whatever reason, that did not happen, the available options may be more limited, or even nonexistent, and the risks of a malpractice action against counsel for whoever did not get the benefits is significant.1 Most reviewing courts have either found or simply assumed that Mansell is applicable in litigation concerning post-divorce recharacterizations by retirees, and attempted to apply it to resolve the cases before them. Nevertheless, those appellate courts have almost uniformly reached the same ultimate destination as the court in Krempin, by means of a longer analysis. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the appropriate military pay center shall pay the sums called for above directly to SPOUSE, to the extent permitted by law, at the same times as MEMBER receives retired or retainer pay, and that this Decree is intended to qualify under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act, IOU .S.C. 1408 et seq., with all provisions to be interpreted to make the Decree qualify. UP> Essentially identical holdings to those of this Court have been issued in every other community property State,1 with the exception as noted of Texas, which freezes the spousal share at the rank and grade at divorce. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified. The Court noted that both parties accepted that the separate funds so paid by the husband were presumed to have been a gift to the wife or to the joint tenancy and that the burden was upon the husband to overcome such presumption by clear and convincing evidence citing to Weeks v. Weeks, 72 Nev. 268, 302P.2d 750 (1956); Peardon v. Peardon, 65 Nev. 717, 201 P.2d 309 (1948) and Zahringer v. Zahringer, 76 Nev. 21, 348 P.2d 161 (1960). Because of the circumstances, the Courtheld that the district court was justified in considering such statements as having been made and the husband was able to overcome the presumption that the property placed into joint tenancy were presumed to have been a gift to the wife or to the joint tenancy. You can find The Marren and Page Case List Lake v Bender Milisich v Hillhouse Jones v Ed The Marren and Page Case List Bopp v Lino Nevada SBP lawyer Feral Paralegals Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section VIII Las Vegas CSRS expert lawyer Uniform Child Custody Enforcement Act Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar What to Argue If Seeking to Prevent a Court with Jurisdiction from Exercisi Jurisdictional Issues Hedlund Amicus Brief Legal Doctrines at Play in this Appeal Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section V Subsection E An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Conclusion The Marren and Page Case Russo v Gardner McDermott v McDermott and Hayes v The Marren and Page Case List Peters v Peters Model Decree of Divorce Clauses Dividing MRB The Marren and Page Case List In re Swall Ogawa extending time to file under UCCJEA The Marren and Page Case List Lake v Bender Milisich v Hillhouse Jones v Ed available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Independent Suit for Tort Damages After the Hague Proceeding Rivero The Marren and Page Case List McKissick v Mckissick The Marren and Page Case List Lake v Bender Milisich v Hillhouse Jones v Ed Rivero v Rivero Opinion Pickerings Conclusion Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Five |
|
|