 
|
The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas
Learn more about The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas.
Although there may be a way to distinguish the facts on this issue from a situation in which the entire retirement is considered a "missed asset,"1 that distinction is a mighty thin one, and Samaroo stands as a warning for counsel to not agree to a termination of marital status until appropriate provision has been made to protect the survivor benefit. An interim QDRO may be used for this purpose if the divorce is to occur before information is available to accurately determine the parties’ respective interests. This is a discretionary (as opposed to strictly legal) decision, but it does not seem reasonable for a trial court to get dragged into a dispute as to which of the two potential beneficiaries is most "deserving" of the SBP - a dispute that would almost certainly devolve into a conflict over the causes of the original divorce, with all of the fault-based overtones that modern divorce practice tries to avoid. In analyzing the best interests of the child, the district court should look to the factors outlined in the statute and consider each matter on a case-by-case basis. In the United States, generally, married parents are presumed to have joint legal and physical custody. Even after divorce, a parent with joint legal custody generally has an equal right to determine questions such as where the child attends school, and any proceeding to alter the status quo of custody and visitation must pass due process muster.2 When a child has been removed to the United States from another country determined to be the childfs habitual residence, however, the underlying parent-and-child law of that country should be reviewed to see if a left-behind parent with whatever relationship exists between the child and that parent has a legal right of custody as defined by the law of that country. The Convention is "deliberately expansive" on this point, and counsel should be sensitive to allowing the widest possible scope of a basis of rights under the law of other States for the exercise of "rights of custody" by a parent.3 B) A dependent child of a member or former member referred to in paragraph (2)(A)who was a member of the household of the member or former member at the time of the misconduct described in paragraph (2)(A) shall be entitled to receive medical and dental care, to use commissary and exchange stores, and to have other benefits provided to dependents of retired members of the armed forces n the same manner as if the member or form er member referred to in paragraph (2)(A) was entitled to re tired pay. The Convention, by its own terms, "ceases to apply" when the child attains the age of 16 years.7 In keeping with normal rules of statutory construction, this time limit presumably goes to the initiation of proceedings, not the final order, so as not to provide any incentive for delay. Initially, to address the definition of joint physical custody, we define legal custody, including sole legal custody and joint legal custody. We then define physical custody, including joint physical custody and primary physical custody. In defining joint physical custody, we adopt a definition that focuses on minor children having frequent associations and a continuing relationship with both parents and parents sharing the rights and responsibilities of child rearing. Consistent with the recommendation of the Family Law Section, this joint physical custody definition requires that each party have physical custody of the child at least 40 percent of the time. We then address the district court's rulings. does not have an exchange value or any objective transferable value on an open market. It is personal to the holder. It terminates on the death of the holder and is not inheritable. It cannot be assigned, sold, transferred, conveyed or pledged. An advanced degree is a cumulative product of many years of previous education, combined with diligence and hard work. It may not be acquired by the mere expenditure of money. It is simply an intellectual achievement that may potentially assist in the future acquisition of property .... Wheeler v. Upton-Wheeler, 113 Nev. 1185, 946 P.2d 200 (1997)In 1993, the wife filed for divorce. At trial, the wife introduced photographs showing bruises, alleging that husband abused her, and "admitted for the limited purpose of determining whether her request for an unequal division of community property should be granted." The district court gave her an unequal distribution. Therefore, in addressing the first two questions raised by this Court: 1) the Hague Convention does not apply to the underlying child custody issues in this case because Japan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention; and, 2) the district court could not properly conclude that, under the Hague Convention, Nevada was the children’s "habitual residence," as the Hague Convention does not apply to disputes involving non-signatory nation states, such as Japan, and any such determination would have to be made in the country to which the children were removed, even if Japan had been a signatory country. All such language, and findings, in the proceedings in this case are meaningless. Rationales for that recognition usually include that the benefits accrued during marriage, that income during marriage was effectively reduced in exchange for the deferred pension benefits, and that the choice was made to forego possible alternative employment which would have paid more in current wages, in order to have the pension. Anecdotal accounts suggest that this basic approach has been stumbled upon, if not clearly enunciated; in long-term marriages, the trial court sometimes effectively pools the current income of a working spouse and the retirement income of a spouse who has retired, until both achieve retirement age, at which time each receives his or her time-share rule of all retirement benefits earned during marriage. This achieves, by design, the result of the cases where the payor spouse moves for alimony termination upon retirement - without the additional litigation of the modification motion. Enforceable orders include "a judgment, decree or order relating to child support, alimony or the disposition of community property" and extends to "all or a portion of the allowance or benefit of a member or retired employee."4 An order will be enforced if it satisfies five requirements: The organized family law Bar must become more proactive in the legislative process. Too much, we have allowed private lobbying groups to speak for the family law bar. Experience has shown clearly that those organizations, and their representatives, have political and personal agendas considerably beyond looking out for equity, impartiality, and logic in family law. The parties were married in Michigan in 1944. In June 1957, the husband filed for divorce in Michigan. The wife appeared and filed for separate maintenance and then for divorce. The husband abandoned the Michigan case. The husband moved to Nevada and obtained a Nevada default decree. The decree contained no provision for alimony. Then, in February 1960, the Michigan court awarded the wife a divorce, alimony and $5,000 in lieu of dower. Once the wife learned the ex-husband was in Arizona, she sued him there for the accrued amount due under the Michigan judgment. The husband appeared and was represented. The Arizona court entered a judgment for $7,500 in December 1960. The wife then filed in Nevada seeking to recover the amount due upon the Arizona judgment. The district court refused to give the foreign judgment full faith and credit. The district court concluded that the earlier Nevada decree invalidated the later Michigan decree which also invalidated the Arizona judgment. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court commented that the case was only a suit upon a foreign judgment for money and that it was impermissible to look behind the judgment. The husband never challenged the jurisdiction of the Arizona court to render the money judgment, nor did he suggest that it had been procured by fraud, or that it had been satisfied in whole or in part. The Court held that the judgment was a final judgment for full faith and credit purposes. The Court further held that a valid ex parte divorce entered at the domicile of only one party to the marriage did not automatically end the wife’s right to support. The second possibility stated by the majority for finding jurisdiction in the family court ¨C that the couple "otherwise qualify as a familial unit" ¨C may have created even worse problems. That terminology is unknown to the prior case law, and appears on its face to be contrary to the standard slowly being evolved in this subject area. A division of the benefit "in-kind," also called an "if, as, and when" division, may be the preferable form of dividing retirement benefits. It has the advantages of fully and fairly dividing the actual benefit received without speculation as to actuarial valuation, inflation, life expectancies, etc. Preferred or not, such a division may be necessary if the "present value" of the retirement is so large that there is no other asset that could be traded for the spousal share. There are attorneys, and some trial level judges, who have tried to hold the language used in pre-Mansell divorce decrees to that "higher standard of clarity," arguing that the language of the USFSPA itself provided adequate "notice" of the issue to the former spouse as of 1982. Since virtually every published decision before Mansell had rejected the construction of the language embraced by the majority in Mansell, however, that argument has been almost universally rejected by appellate courts as sophistry, or at best a misdirected retroactive application of the Mansell holding. SPAN> In the Mattter of Parental Rights as to K.D.L., 118 Nev. 737, 58 P.3d 181 (2002) As to the best interests of the children, the father failed to overcome the presumptions enunciated in NRS 128.109(2) that if a child has resided outside of his home pursuant to that placement for 14 months of any 20 consecutive months, the best interests of the child must be presumed to be served by the termination of parental rights. NRS 128.109(2) and NRS 432B.553(2), taken together express the general public policy to seek permanent placement for children rather than have them remain in foster care. Although there may be a way to distinguish the facts on this issue from a situation in which the entire retirement is considered a "missed asset,"1 that distinction is a mighty thin one, and Samaroo stands as a warning for counsel to not agree to a termination of marital status until appropriate provision has been made to protect the survivor benefit. An interim QDRO may be used for this purpose if the divorce is to occur before information is available to accurately determine the parties’ respective interests. unconstitutional impairment of contracts with the United States (by which the members contended that they alone were to receive the entirety of their retirement benefits), and that spousal awards under the USFSPA were due process violations. SUP> There is no published Nevada case squarely addressing the question of whether one party can take advantage of the delay between trial and entry of judgment to assert that the other party (presumably working for a living) is accruing "unadjudicated assets" (or paying down debt) during that pendency which are then subject to further proceedings or division. Saying "no" to that question has been the uniform result in all known Nevada cases, and appears to be the consensus in published cases from other jurisdictions, reflecting a policy choice of encouraging promptness rather than delay.8 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 vacancy in Department D occurred on July 1, 2008, when Judge Hardcastle retired. On August 22, 2008, in accordance with Nevada Constitution Article 6, Section 20(1), the Governor appointed Robert Teuton to Department D from among three nominees selected by the Commission on Judicial Selection. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court found the debt payment language qualified as maintenance or support, since without it the "spouse would be inadequately supported." Specifically, the Court noted that the husband's assumption of debt was tied to the parties' agreement for lower child support; when he breached the agreement, he left the wife inadequately supported. B> Military members accrue thirty days of leave each year. If not used, it accrues throughout service, and is worth its monthly equivalent pay, although newer regulations limit the amount of leave that can be accrued to 60 days, with come exceptions. States vary on whether or not unused vacation or sick pay (and thus, by analogy, accrued but unused military leave) constitutes "property" for equitable or community property division. The Court further held that the district court manifestly abused its discretion when it incorrectly concluded it need not make such a determination. The Court concluded the habitual residence of the children was Norway and that the children were wrongfully removed from that country and held the Hague convention required the district court to make a determination under the terms of the convention. SUP> While slightly off-topic, one recurring error bears additional mention here. The State issuing a spousal support order is the only State that can ever modify that spousal support award, even if no one still remains in the issuing State, and even if all parties have now moved to the same other State.9 So lawyers should not file, and judges should not entertain, motions to modify alimony orders entered elsewhere. Nevertheless, the Nevada child support guidelines were derived from the Wisconsin Guidelines: making Nevada one of half a dozen "percentage of income" guideline States." This l See 1985 Report at 36. 2 See family Support Act of 1988, Pub. Law No. 100-485, 102 Stat. 2343 (October 13. 1988). The law essentially required every State to adopt some SOli of child support guideline. J See Dodson, A Guide to the Guidelines, Family Advocate 4, 6 Spring 1988 (reprinted in 1989 legislative history of A.B. 85 at 1064). 4 See 1989 Legislative History of A.B. 85 at 222-246. It is then the attorney’s job to finalize a retainer agreement of some sort with the client,3 create the necessary paperwork, educate the court on the Convention and the particular client’s situation, attend such hearings as are necessary, and complete the final paperwork and physical arrangements necessary to recover the child. The decree approved an agreement between the parties which was held merged in the decree. The wife sought a money judgment against the husband for arrears. The district court awarded the wife judgment against the husband for $12,535.17. The district court limited interest at the statutory rate on the various sums totaling $12,535.17 to a time commencing January 1, 1960, from which she appeals. The husband contended he was entitled to a credit of $1,972 paid directly to a son while attending college and prior to his 21st birthday; a credit of $1,562 representing tuition and living expenses paid directly to the son while attending college after reaching 21 years. The husband also contended there should have been no longer required to make payments to the wife for their daughter after her marriage. The agreement, merged into the decree, however, provided that payments to be alimony. The agreement did not expressly provide for reduction in the alimony payments in the event one of the children married. B> Although the agency administering the TSP has proven more flexible than either the military or the OPM, its regulations did spawn yet another acronym for a court order dividing benefits - "RBCO," for "Retirement Benefits Court Order." The national AAML has for many years had working groups dedicated to review of the ethical codes governing family law practice, and conceived the idea for what would become known as the "Bounds of Advocacy" in November, 1987. The committee, which canvassed the entire AAML for its collective wisdom and experience, included Gary Silverman of Reno; the proposed text was vetted and reviewed by academics and judicial authorities for years before its publication in 1991. The primary purpose of the USFSPA was to define state court jurisdiction to consider and use military retired pay in fixing the property and support rights of the parties to a divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation." Byfits and starts, every State in the Union has permitted military retirement benefits to be divided as property, at least in certain circumstances. You can find The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Subsection II B Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar The Marren and Page Case List Rush v Rush Gilbert v Warren Nevada QDRO lawyer The Marren and Page Case List Vincent L G v State Divorce of Child and Fami Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Part One Subsection II Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Question of Outright Prohibition Support Flow Rivero v Rivero Opinion CONCLUSION The Marren and Page Case List Applebaum v Applebaum The Marren and Page Case List Engebretson v Engebretson Concurrent Receipt this Entire Issue Is Destined to Go Away Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section X Subsection B The Marren and Page Case List Lake v Bender Milisich v Hillhouse Jones v Ed The ¡°Ubiquitous Time Rule¡± ¨C More Flavors than You Might Expect Choosing Between A Spouse and A Former Spouse as the Proper Beneficiary of Jurisdictional Issues Rivero The Marren and Page Case List Choate v Ransom and Braddock v Braddock The Marren and Page Case List Pelletier v Pelletier Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas The Marren and Page Case List McMonigle v McMonigle Hooper v Hooper and Cas |
|
|