 
|
The Marren and Page Case List Abell v Second Judicial District Court Cole v
Learn more about The Marren and Page Case List Abell v Second Judicial District Court Cole v.
The case was an action on a promissory note. A claim was made that the husband owed the boarder some sum of money. A promissory note was executed by the husband in favor of the boarder on March 1, 1917, for $1,000. The complaint alleged that no part of the note, either principal or interest, had been paid, except $330, which was paid on account of said note as follows: March 1, 1920, for $10, and November 1, 1920, to June 5, 1921, at the rate of $10 each week, and that said sums paid had been credited on account of the principal and interest of said note. The boarder had roomed at husband and wife’s home for a week beginning March 1, 1920, and also from November 1, 1920, to June 5, 1921. In regard to the payments, the boarder testified that some time in May 1921, at the husband’s home, the husband agreed with him that his board and lodging during the times mentioned was to be charged for at the rate of $10 per week, and to be credited on the note. The husband denied that any such agreement was made, and contended that the evidence showed that the amount due for the boarding was the earnings of his wife, and, as such, was her separate property. 1. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 125A.335 or by other state law, if a court of this state has jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of this chapter because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless: This is where the complications and illogic come in. Presume three identical divorces on the same day. In the first case, the attorney, who knew almost nothing about military retirement benefits law, did not even know there was an SBP to allocate. The second knew that something had to be done, and so put a statement in the Order verifying that the former spouse was to be the beneficiary. The third not only knew to secure the right, but knew about the deemed election procedure, sent the required notice in, etc. These materials will look at the interplay between military and civil service retirements, where a service member leaves military service and begins a second career in the civil service. SPAN> Gladys Baker Olsen Trust ex rel. Olsen v. Olsen, 109 Nev. 838, 858 P.2d 385 (1993)The district court entered order that "substantially and adversely" affected the trust in ongoing efforts by wife to enforce spousal support provisions. The district court basically ordered turnover of assets to former wife, and various administrative changes. The district court allowed intervention by the trust under NRCP 24 for purpose of allowing the trust to appeal under NRAP 3A(a). Supreme Court dismissed appeal, claiming there was no authority in the district court to allow post-judgment intervention to appeal a order already entered; the court’s allowance of intervention was beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, appeal was dismissed. There was little effect from dismissal, since the trust was allowed to petition by extraordinary writ for same relief. See case below. SUP> In general, if the increase in the value of the separate property during the marriage is the result of the normal, or expected, appreciation in the asset (such as interest earned in a savings account), the increased value belongs to the owner-spouse as his separate property.10 On the other hand, if the asset has increased in value during the marriage as the result of the spouse’s labor and skills, the increase in value belongs to the community.11 However, in the latter situation, an allowance is made for the natural increase in the value of the asset which would be expected from a reasonable return on the separate property investment.12 Furthermore, because of the statutory presumption that rents, issues and profits from separate property are also separate property, the burden is on the spouse claiming that an increase is due to the labor and skills of the other spouse to rebut this presumption.13 SPAN> As time passes, and the number of living persons with McCarty-gap divorces decreases, it becomes ever less likely that additional states will pass window statutes. Five years later, the Eighth Circuit in Bush v. Taylor, 912 F.2d 989, vacating 893 F.2d 962 (8th Cir. 1990), concurred as to the non-dischargeability of the former spouse’s future interest in payments to the former spouse, but held that any sums paid to the member and kept rather than being paid to the former spouse were retained by the member wrongfully, and he remained liable despite the bankruptcy for the full amount of payments that should have, but were not, made to the former spouse. The bankruptcy thus had no impact on the former spouse’s rights. Citing Walsh3 and Carrell,4 this Court held that pension payments cannot be classified as temporary spousal support, because such support is subject to possible future modification. The Court found the lower court’s lowering of payments to reflect "the taxable consequences" of the payments was "arbitrary" and held that it violated the equal distribution presumption of NRS The case was an action on a promissory note. A claim was made that the husband owed the boarder some sum of money. A promissory note was executed by the husband in favor of the boarder on March 1, 1917, for $1,000. The complaint alleged that no part of the note, either principal or interest, had been paid, except $330, which was paid on account of said note as follows: March 1, 1920, for $10, and November 1, 1920, to June 5, 1921, at the rate of $10 each week, and that said sums paid had been credited on account of the principal and interest of said note. The boarder had roomed at husband and wife’s home for a week beginning March 1, 1920, and also from November 1, 1920, to June 5, 1921. In regard to the payments, the boarder testified that some time in May 1921, at the husband’s home, the husband agreed with him that his board and lodging during the times mentioned was to be charged for at the rate of $10 per week, and to be credited on the note. The husband denied that any such agreement was made, and contended that the evidence showed that the amount due for the boarding was the earnings of his wife, and, as such, was her separate property. State statutes and cases express different preferences for the possible "cash out/exchange" and "if/as/when" division methods of allocating retirement benefits. The unanimous Court held that an ex-wife’s waiver of any rights under her husband’s savings and investment plan (SIP) in a divorce decree that was not a QDRO did not control over her ex-husband’s designation of her as his beneficiary in accordance with the terms and forms of the SIP, at least as to how the plan should make out checks, if not as to who should ultimately get the money. Law School, the MPRE, and the bar exam all tested each of us on professional responsibility and ethic as officers of the court. Civility among our peers is as expected as zealous representation of our clients (And do as adversaries in law - Strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends." Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew.) We were taught that these are cornerstones of the practice of law. If that is the case, our foundation may be built on shifting sand. 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 member spouse accrues a military retirement during marriage providing exactly $1 ,000 after 20 years. b. The cost to virtually every party in every motion hearing would be reduced, since the entire step of getting counsel to draft, submit, and file orders would be eliminated. The fine-line drawing calls into question the ends that are supposed to be served by the prohibitions embedded in our ethical rules, and whether the public policies implicated are served by allowing or prohibiting either "results-achieved bonuses," or regular contingency agreements, given the place of divorce in modern American life. Put another way, is there still a legitimate purpose to be served by preventing counsel from being retained other than on a strictly hourly basis in cases involving alimony, or any other domestic relations matters? SPAN> In the Matter of Parental Rights as to Q.L.R., 118 Nev. 602, 54 P.3d 56 (2002) The fact that the father committed a crime did not mean he intended to go to prison and, therefore, to abandon the child. Voluntary conduct resulting in incarceration does not alone establish an intent to abandon a minor child. The attorneys for the Court that have attended Ely in past years have seemed capable, interested, and caring. I’m sure they are trying hard, while probably overwhelmed. But I think they have no way of knowing the real-world impacts of their submissions to the Court. If, as I suspect, the problem is the lack of exposure to the realities of family law practice, what would seem advisable is to solve that problem, as directly as possible. Washington goes along with the methodology of those two States, when the disability exists at the time of retirement. Alabama seems to lean against compensating a spouse when the disability benefits exist at the time of divorce, but has not spoken as to post-divorce recharacterization. The mother received primary custody of the three children. In June 1977, one of the parties’ children moved into the father’s home. In response, the father reduced the support payments by $250 per month for the months of June and July, and $474.50 from the payment August payment. In August 1977, the mother filed a motion for judgment for arrearages, requesting a judgment for the amounts withheld from the June and July payments. At the hearing, the father testified that he had in fact reduced the payments for June, July, and August. The father argued that he should be entitled to an "equitable setoff" of the amounts he actually expended on his son while he was living with him. The district court entered judgment for the arrears and held the father in contempt for reducing the payments. SPAN> Miller v. Wilfong, 119 P. 3d 727, 121 Nev. Adv. Rep. 61 (September 22, 2005)The parties dated, but never married. They had a child together. After the child was born, the father filed a petition to determine paternity. The father served the petition on the mother after the welfare office sought to recoup funds given to the mother from the father. The father also sought joint physical custody. Pro bono counsel represented the mother, and the father appeared in proper person, but later obtained counsel. The district court awarded the parties joint legal custody and awarded the mother primary physical custody and child support. The district court also awarded the mother’s attorney $3,000 in attorney fees pursuant to Sargeant v. Sargeant, 88 Nev. 223, 495 P.2d 618 (1972). In addition to concluding that fees could be awarded to pro bono counsel and that fees could be awarded in paternity cases, the Court also issued sanctions for filing a deficient brief. 65279;Continued political pressure resulted in elimination of the Social Security offset, phased in over three and a half years starting in October, 2005, and ending April, 2008. The SBP premiums were phased out; at the end of the adjustment period, all SBP recipients should receive 55% of the base amount indefinitely, regardless of age. Most PERS participants are eligible for retirement at 65 with five years of service, or 60 with ten years of service, or any age with 30 years of service.5 Certain employees operate under separate rules, however. Police and fire-fighters also can retire at age 65 with five years of service, but they become eligible to retire at age 55 with ten years of service, or age 50 with 20 years of service, or at any age with 25 years of service.6 You can find The Marren and Page Case List Abell v Second Judicial District Court Cole v Pre-Mansell and Post-Mansell Decrees The Marren and Page Case List In re Fosters Estate Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief What to Argue If Seeking to Prevent a Court with Jurisdiction from Exercisi Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section V Subsection D The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas Rivero v Rivero Opinion III A Introduction to Nevada alimony and spousal support law Legal Authority for Use in Requesting Fees in a Paid Case The Marren and Page Case List McKissick v Mckissick The Marren and Page Case List In the Matter of Parental Rights as to K D L An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section I Subsection A Introduction to Nevada law of relocation move cases Las Vegas divorce law advocate The Marren and Page Case List Abell v Second Judicial District Court Cole v available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section C The Marren and Page Case List Lombardi v Lombardi Giorgi v Giorgi Hopper v Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section XI Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Part Two Rivero v Rivero Opinion The Marren and Page Case List Whise v Whise Fleming v Fleming Presson v Pre Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Part Two Subsection III A |
|
|