 
|
The Marren and Page Case List Grey v Grey
Learn more about The Marren and Page Case List Grey v Grey.
Venue procedural defectsIf the spouse dies before retirement (whether the parties are married or divorced), no spousal consent is needed to waive the SBP. If the spouse dies during marriage but after retirement, SBP premium deduction stops as soon as the military pay center is informed of the spouse’s death. At the same time, the Court eliminated the complicated (and equally uncertain) child support calculation formula in the original Opinion, instead making all such cases fall under the Wright v. Osburn, 114 Nev. 1367, 970 P.2d 1071 (1998), offset method for calculating child support. The many cases that have considered extraordinary visitation as a deviation factor have echoed this test: a deviation may not be had unless there is evidence that the extended visitation has a concrete economic impact on the non-custodial parent and the custodial parent. Turinsky v. Long, 910 P.2d 590 (Alaska 1996); Renfro v. Renfro, 848 P.2d 803 (Alaska 1993) (adjustment based on expenses incurred during visitation should at least be considered by court, even if deviation is not ultimately granted); Pridgeon v. Pridgeon, 632 So. 2d 257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994) (child'S extended visitation with father can be considered in making award where extended stays have the effect of reducing the custodial parent's expenses); Marmaduke v. Marmaduke, 640 N.E.2d 441 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (where father had custody close to 50%, proper to deviate to compensate for added expenses); Terpstra v. Terpstra, 588 N.E.2d 592 (Ind. ct. App. 1992) (close to 50% custody warranted deviation where there was evidence concerning noncustodial parent's expenses); In re Marriage of Gray, 18 Kan. App. 2d 15, 846 P.2d 944 (1993) (court may deviate for extensive visitation); Remson v. Remson, 672 So. 2d 409 (La. Ct. App. 1996) (court would reduce father's obligation because of economic impact of extended visitation); Brazan v. Brazan, 638 So. 2d 1176 (La. Ct. App. 1994) (where father had child 50% of the time, court would deviate to account for such arrangement, since father paid for child care and medical insurance); Montet v. Montet, 629 So. 2d 538 (La. Ct. APP· 1993) Goint custooy is reason for deviation where the parents contribute equally in the day-to-day care of the child); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 870 S.W.2d 480 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) (noncustodial father not entitled to reduction in support, despite claim that children were with him 36% of the time, where there was no evidence concerning economic impact); Kappelmann v. Kappelmann, 218 A.D.2d 698, 630 N.Y.S.2d 555 (1995) (father entitled to adjustment in support for summer months children spent with him); Narvae v. Freestone, 281 N.J. Super. SPAN> Champagne v. Welfare Divorce., 100 Nev. 640, 652, 691 P.2d 849, 858 (1984) Reversed by In the Matter of Termination of Parental Rights of N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 8 P.3d 126 (2000) Probably the most widely cited case is In re Teichman, 774 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1985), in which the Ninth Circuit confirmed the non-dischargeability of the former spouse’s future interest in payments to her of military retired pay to be paid after the date of the bankruptcy petition. By split decision, however, the court termed amounts previously paid to the member (despite the divorce court order awarding those sums to the former spouse) as a "debt" to her that could be discharged. Thus, the member was able to retain all sums that he should have previously paid to the former spouse under the state court order (i.e., the arrearages). Where actions are pending in courts of different states, whether to stay or dismiss one action or the other should be raised by motion.9 A ruling on whether to stay or dismiss must take into consideration matters outside the pleadings, such as the seriousness of the threat of multiple and vexatious litigation, the convenience of the parties, the status of the foreign action, and the competing interests of the two forums.10 Considerations of comity and prevention of multiple and vexatious litigation will most often militate in favor of dismissal of the later-filed action, unless there is some clear superiority of that action being the one that should proceed.11 1) The United States and any other or employee of the United States shall not be liable with respect to any payment made from retired pay to any member, spouse, or form er spouse pursuant to a court order that is regular on its face if such payment is made in accordance with this section and the regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection (i). The Court also affirmed its holding in Gemma v. Gemma, 105 Nev. 458, 778 P.2d 429 (1989) and its progeny. In doing so, the Court rejected husband’s argument that a portion of the pension was the result of passive appreciation of his sole and separate portion of the pension (husband had been a PERS employee for ten years before the parties married) and, therefore, some of the community portion of the pension should be set over to him. On the other hand, such a distribution increases the possibility of later court fights over enforcement or interpretation of the original order for division.1 It gives each of the parties a stake in the other’s life - if the former spouse predeceases the member, the member’s retired pay goes up by whatever sum the former spouse had been receiving, and if the member dies first, the spousal share stops unless survivor’s benefits have been provided for in the order. In January, 2009, the United States Supreme Court decided Kennedy v. Plan Adm’r for DuPont Sav. And Inv., ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 865, 172 L. Ed.2d 662. The case should cause every divorce lawyer to feel some discomfort. This was a case with a limited record. The trial transcript was not a part of the record and except for the district court's findings of fact the husband's statement was the only recitation of facts which the Court had to review. The husband appealed from the district court making a lump sum alimony awards contingent upon the wife seeking training to improve her hearing ability and to improve her earning capacity as a beauty operator. The Court approved the district court making a lump sum alimony awards contingent upon the wife seeking training to improve her hearing ability and to improve her earning capacity as a beauty operator. There is apparently no prohibition, however, against a former spouse who has been thus deceived proceeding against the member (at least while everyone is still alive). Such a suit would not be interfering with the protected insurance policy, but punishing the contemptuous act of duplicity by the member. As with other matters involved in these cases, the key is adequate vigilance, especially by the former spouse, to be sure that what was negotiated or ordered was actually put into place, and no one attempts to fraudulently evade the orders, before anyone dies. 5. Offset resulting amounts under subd. 4. against each other. The parent with a greater child support obligation is the shared-placement payer. The shared-placement payer shall pay the lesser of the amount determined under this subd. or the amount determined using the appropriate percentage standard under s. DCF 150.03 (1). If the shared-placement payer is also a low-income payer, the child support obligation may be the lesser of the amount determined under this subd. or under sub. (4). 8) is incapable of self-support because of a mental or physical incapacity that existed before becoming 18 years of age and is dependent on the member or former member for over one-half of the child's support; or The husband quit a well paying job, moved to Nevada, took a lesser paying job, and filed for divorce. The wife appeared and contested the grounds. The district court refused to admit or consider evidence concerning the husband’s previous income and income earning ability or what other jobs might be available viewing such testimony as speculative and irrelevant. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted that as in Ballin v. Ballin, 78 Nev. 224, 371 P.2d 32 (1962), the agreement and the decree each expressly directed that the agreement survive divorce. In Ballin, jurisdiction was not reserved. Jurisdiction not being reserved in Ballin was used to justify the modification. The Court further noted that in Ballin it tried to make it clear that, where the agreement and decree each directed survival, a later dispute regarding support must rest upon the agreement, as the rights of the parties flow from the agreement rather than from the decree approving it. Thus, a motion to modify the decree (as distinguished from an action on the agreement) was there held to be precluded. The Court held that the same rationale would apply in this case. A purported reservation of jurisdiction as to alimony was ineffectual. The Court held that jurisdiction could not be reserved to deal with a subject over which the divorce court has divested itself of jurisdiction by directing survival. If the spouse dies before retirement (whether the parties are married or divorced), no spousal consent is needed to waive the SBP. If the spouse dies during marriage but after retirement, SBP premium deduction stops as soon as the military pay center is informed of the spouse’s death. Next door in Nevada, community property ceases to accrue on the "date of divorce."2 There, the math would be 12 (years of marriage) ¡Â 20 (years of service) x .5 (spousal share) x $1,000 (pension payment) = $300. And if the response is that volunteers just can¡¯t be made to perform this task timely, then the adjudicatory function should be assigned to Bar counsel. Alternatively, the structure of the program could be altered to charge a filing fee (say, $25 to $50), and use that to pay lawyers to act as fee dispute mediators and arbitrators. In this economic climate, given the number of unemployed and underemployed lawyers now around, it should not be hard to come up with someone qualified to deal with these matters for $50 apiece. Could the Bar call on senior judges to perform this task, for a modest stipend? And the law is even more inclined to err in favor of the member in disputes relating to visitation and the substitution of third parties for the member’s usual time. In Illinois, since World War II, the courts have decided that the SSCRA permitted granting fit relatives (at least grandparents) to exercise the child visitation previously enjoyed by a deployed military member.3 Other states have similar case law.4 Nevada, like most states, has its own pension program for State employees. PERS has origins going back to 1947 and is now codified at NRS 286.010, et seq. Essentially, the system is a defined benefit pension program. The theory is that the former spouse should be able to decide when benefits that are due and payable to the spouse will actually commence - that "The employee spouse cannot by election defeat the nonemployee spouse’s interest in the community property by relying on a condition within the employee spouse’s control."3 A spouse making such an election should also receive the imputed cost of living adjustments that would have accrued if the member had retired, but the former spouse would not share in any actual later increases in rank, or benefit from additional years in service. You can find The Marren and Page Case List Grey v Grey The Marren and Page Case List Abell v Second Judicial District Court Cole v The Marren and Page Case List Applebaum v Applebaum The Marren and Page Case List Milender v Marcum Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief CONCLUSION Love me Love My Dog Part two of two Introduction to Nevada alimony and spousal support law The Marren and Page Case List Jones v Edwards Death of Member Before Retirement and After Divorce Las Vegas family law specialist Disability Benefits Las Vegas domestic relations law Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Discussion Medical and Other Ancillary Military Benefits to Consider The Marren and Page Case List Grey v Grey available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map The Marren and Page Case List Wolford v Wolford Feral Paralegals Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Part Two A The Marren and Page Case List Peardon v Peardon Rush v Rush Applebaum v App What is Considered Separate Property Including Characterization of Earnings CONCLUSION Disability Benefits and Concurrent Receipt The Marren and Page Case List Wiese v Granata Reciprocal Links: The Marren and Page Case List Grey v Grey The Marren and Page Case List Grey v Grey The Marren and Page Case List Grey v Grey The Marren and Page Case List Grey v Grey |