 
|
The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson
Learn more about The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson.
Property saleThe Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted that absent statute or agreement, attorneys fees are not recoverable citing to Consumers League of Nevada v. Southwest Gas Corp., 94 Nev. 153, 576 P.2d 737 (1978). the mother argued that NRS 125.040(1), NRS 125.150(3) and NRS 125.180 authorized the court to award attorneys fees for the prior appeal. The Court held that the district court erred in awarding attorneys fees for the previous appeal as there was no statutory basis to do so. The Supreme Court apparently requires specific statutory authority to authorize an award to the financially weaker party attorneys fees for prosecuting or defending an appeal. 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.1 The Supreme Court noted the three years provided by NRS 11.190(3)(d), accruing upon discovery of facts constituting the fraud. The Court found that while the wife had discovered the sham transactions by 1989, that awareness did not, as a matter of law, constitute discovery by wife of facts constituting the fraud by the law firm. The Court held that when a plaintiff knew or in the exercise of proper diligence should have known of the facts constituting the elements of a cause of action is a question of fact. Looking to the five year RICO statute of limitations in NRS 207.470, the Court termed the "injury" to be discovered both the injury itself and the cause of that injury, here the alleged racketeering activity, which should not have been ruled upon below as a matter of law. In light of the family support regulations, often a letter to the commanding officer of the member can initiate at least some support payments pending issuance of a court order. Once an order is obtained, support may be enforced by way of garnishment.5 Accrued arrears may also be recovered if they are specified in the order.6 An "involuntary allotment" can be initiated by an "authorized person" by sending the support order to the DFAS - but such an "authorized person" must be a District Attorney or other person with Title IV-D enforcement authority, not a private attorney.7 Where the statutory presumptive maximum operated to reduce statutory support below what NRS 125B.070 set out for percentages of income (i.e., 18% for one child 25% for two children, etc.), a rational maximum presumptive deviation would be the difference between the statutory presumptive maximum, and the percentage of income otherwise payable.1 Under the "presumed direct contribution" theory, the child would be enjoying some benefit of the relatively wealthy When the Senate Judiciary Committee was informed of the various problems with the bill, that evening, instructions were given to have it quietly amended, essentially overnight and with no record other than the bill draft itself, but the Section was informed that it could not be killed entirely, apparently as a matter of comity from chamber to chamber. The worst portions of the bill were removed between June 28 and June 30, 1995; it was redirected to apply solely to PERS retirements, and was reprinted, passed, and returned to the Assembly, which concurred in the amendments without other record. If the order establishes payment to the Alternate Payee based on the period of marriage, the years of service credit earned during the marriage must be (1) calculated in the order or (2) the marriage date given]. PAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> Of the referenced model sections, the key is Section 202, which became NRS 125.315. This new provision defines "Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction" (commonly, if oddly, abbreviated as "CEJ"). It provides a few very simple rules by which continuing jurisdiction can nearly always be easily and quickly ascertained. The Supreme Court noted the elements involved. The elements were parentage, that the defendant had a legal child support obligation, that the defendant knew of obligation, and that defendant willfully failed to support the child. The Court noted that NRS 201.070 allowed proof of willfulness by showing neglect or refusal to provide support, and implied lack of just cause, excuse or justification. While the law did not contemplate punishing a person for not doing that which he cannot do, the burden was on the father to show excuse or justification, and testimony that he lived "hand to mouth" was insufficient to do so. The Court held that per NRS 194.020, it was no defense that the father was outside of Nevada during period in question, since his inaction constituted a criminal act here; six year sentence plus restitution was upheld. P> NRS 125.155, enacted in 1995, establishes a set of special rules applicable only to PERS retirement benefits in divorce. Officers of the Family Law Section did not discover the proposal until nearly the last day of the legislative session, which in its original form would have significantly altered several spousal protections built into Nevadas community property laws.5 It was quickly altered, but even the remaining portion contains provisions that either appear to run afoul of Nevada Supreme Court holdings,6 or otherwise appear to raise equal protection issues, since they treat participants in PERS differently than participants in all other pension plans. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court discussed the homestead statute and that on its face, it seemed to indicate that the exemption was always enforceable against a party seeking to execute on the homestead, unless the party can demonstrate that he or she came within one of the statutory exceptions. By applying the statute in a strictly technical fashion, the Court noted it appeared that the wifes judgment did not come within one of the listed exceptions. The Court held that to interpret the statute in a highly technical fashion would lead to an absurd result and would contravene the legislatures intent in enacting this statute. The Court noted that Homestead laws were designed for the purpose of protecting families and making families secure in their homes from creditors they were unable to pay. Because of that when an ex-wife or child attempted to enforce court-ordered support payments, the rationale behind upholding the homestead exemption could no longer be said to apply, since the policy of protecting the family would no longer be served by such an application. The Court did not believe that a former family member attempting to enforce a support judgment could be considered to be a creditor of the kind against which the legislature sought to protect the homesteader, and that it would be unfair to permit the homestead to be used as a shield under those circumstances to insulate a father from being forced to pay the support that was owed to his own children. The Court further noted that the father owed his first family a duty of support long before the second marriage arose, and he entered into the second marriage well aware of that duty. The Court held that to permit the application of the homestead laws to protect the husbands second family, at the expense of depriving his first family of the support to which they are entitled, was not a result intended by the Nevada Legislature in enacting the homestead laws. Id. at 609. The need for such adjustments is obvious. In January, 1972, the governments Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) was 123.2, meaning that by comparison with the base year of 1967, it took an extra $23.20 to have the same purchasing power that $100 had commanded.1 Put another way, dollars were worth only 81. By January, 1992, the CPI-U was 413.8, meaning that it took an extra $313.80 to gain the purchasing power of the original $100, or that each dollar was worth only 24. If there had been no cost of living adjustments, a $1,000 per month retirement starting in 1972 would only be paying the equivalent value of $240 per month in 1992. Inflation has continued, cumulatively, since that time. 2. "The nonlawyer [employee] must be instructed not to work on any matter on which [he or] she worked during the prior employment, or regarding which [he or] she has information relating to the former employers representation." Massachusetts X X P> Does the order contain language which is not compatible with the Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 286? The responses in this section must be "no" for qualification of the QDRO. Dagher v. Dagher, 103 Nev. 26, 731 P.2d 1329 (1987) In 1990, the parties divorced agreeing that they would share joint legal and physical custody of the child. In March 1991, the father filed a motion, requesting primary physical custody, alleging among other things, that the mother left their daughter home alone. The referee recommended that custody remain with the mother, however, the referee found that the child was spending time alone after school for one or two hours per day on frequent occasions and that a ten-year-old child is too young to be left alone without supervision." The referee recommended that an adult had to be present with the child at all times, and the child is not to be left alone for even 5 minutes and that the child be in sight of a responsible adult at all times. The referee further recommended that if it found the child was still being left alone, custody be changed to the father. The district court adopted the referees findings and recommendations. In February 1992, the father renewed his motion because the mother had been leaving the child alone for several hours. The child was ill and left alone while the mother went to work. The child was interviewed and expressed to stress of being left alone. The referee concluded the mother violated the prior orders, could not be trusted to follow future orders, that it was reprehensible that the child was left alone when ill and recommended that the father be awarded primary physical custody. The district court adopted recommendation. In that original request, or later, the member can ask for a further stay, providing the same information; however, such further stay is discretionary, and depends on the courts finding that the ability of the member to prosecute or defend is "materially affected" by his or her active duty service,2 but it should last only until the end of the "military necessity" which required the stay - usually until leave is available in good faith and with due diligence.3 Those responsible for the decades of delay and millions of dollars of wasted expenditure on NOMADS should be identified and publicly censured. And the Nevada Legislature should direct Welfare to actually collect correctly calculated interest and penalties on child support judgments, neither front-loading, nor later ignoring, statutory penalties. Welfare should be discouraged from continuing the gamesmanship of looking for legal cover with which to paper over its deficiencies, and discouraged from trying to amend the law to match their inaccurate and backward approach. A former spouse who negotiated beneficiary status for SGLI in exchange for giving up other rights, or even obtained an order to receive beneficiary status under that plan, thus has no direct remedy if the member dies having named someone else anyway; a member is free to change beneficiaries, and such a named beneficiary is free from suits from the former spouse for a portion of the proceeds.3 In 2001, the Arizona Court of Appeals again dealt with the contract theory, federal law supremacy assertion, and claims of "involuntariness" that appeared in several of the cases discussed above, in Danielson v. Evans.1 Because the divorce at issue occurred after Mansell, the prevailing former spouse in Danielson was held to the "higher standard of clarity" in the underlying decree (discussed above) to protect her interests. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the "no written contract" finding, but reversed the lower courts finding that litigation was barred by the statute of limitations on the oral contract embodied in that decree, finding that the Illinois court simply lacked subject matter IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that [FORMER SPOUSE] is awarded an interest in [MEMBER]fs pension and retirement interests with the State of Nevada Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), accrued through employment, as follows: Arguably, the military retirement system provides the most arcane, convoluted, and illogical of the death and survivorship interests of any major retirement system. These materials deal with what benefits are in issue, sketches how they work, and makes some suggestions for dealing with those assets before they become liabilities, specifically addressing how the practitioner can achieve cost-shifting in one direction or the other as might be appropriate in a given case. The possibility of continued service by the member beyond the first eligibility date for retirement should be expressly contemplated on the face of every divorce decree dealing with a member who is still on active duty at the time of divorce. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court noted that absent statute or agreement, attorneys fees are not recoverable citing to Consumers League of Nevada v. Southwest Gas Corp., 94 Nev. 153, 576 P.2d 737 (1978). the mother argued that NRS 125.040(1), NRS 125.150(3) and NRS 125.180 authorized the court to award attorneys fees for the prior appeal. The Court held that the district court erred in awarding attorneys fees for the previous appeal as there was no statutory basis to do so. The Supreme Court apparently requires specific statutory authority to authorize an award to the financially weaker party attorneys fees for prosecuting or defending an appeal. SUP> If the facts indicated an agreement, express or implied, to equally co-own the property, that partnership or joint venture could be given effect under the doctrine expressed in Michoff.3 That decision stated that the remedies in Marvin v. Marvin4 (i.e., "palimony," or the setting aside of property acquired by one unmarried cohabitant to the other) were expressly available to unmarried co-habitants.5 SUP> If a non-alimony resolution is desired, or necessary, it is difficult in most cases to come up with sufficient security for such a lifetime stream of payments. This is a problem in jurisdictions which have formal or informal barriers to establishment of alimony awards. And, of course, all the risks associated with bankruptcy are a factor when the spouse exchanges a pension share for anything else. 1. A partner in a law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; While this may all seem perplexing, keep in mind that in child custody situations, domestic violence is also a factor to consider under NRS 125.480 (5). There is a direct correlation between the changes to NRS 33.018 and the best interest factors under NRS 125.480(5). In accordance with the law, our beloved pets could slowly be moving from being recognized as just a piece of property, to being thrown into a category akin to children. 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. 3. To determine the adjusted child support obligation of each parent, the adjusted combined child support obligation shall be divided between the parents in proportion to their respective adjusted gross incomes. Such a deal provides an award to the former spouse of irrevocable, unmodifiable alimony in an amount measured by the military retirement benefits, in exchange for a waiver by the former spouse of any property interest in the retirement benefits themselves. Payments can then be made by the pay center. There is no reason (under the terms of the statute, at least) that cost of living adjustments, etc., cannot be included in such an award, and there should be no difference to the tax impact. The disconnect, and this discussion, is fully applicable to the military context, where (as discussed below) practitioners now are required to deal not only with the standard military retirement (a defined benefit plan), but also with the Thrift Savings Plan (a defined contribution plan). This leads to a huge problem in divorce litigation, as you cant split "Fluffy" in half. In addition, how can you possibly place a monetary value on "Fluffy" in order to get an offset? When you think of the unconditional companionship "Fluffy" has given you throughout the years, even throughout your failed marriage, there is no dollar amount that would suffice. To pet owners, that would be akin to placing a dollar amount on your children. You can find The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson Rivero v Rivero Opinion Subsection Two In Search of a Theoretical Model for Alimony CONCLUSION Public Employees Retirement System PERS Benefits Section III Subsection C Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection Conclusion Motion to File Errata on Rivero Bankruptcy The Marren and Page Case List Christensen v Christensen Peters v Peters and An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section V CONCLUSION Disability Benefits and Concurrent Receipt Legal Separation Allowed An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section I Las Vegas CSRS expert lawyer Rivero v Rivero Opinion III B The Marren and Page Case List Jensen v Jensen and Sertic v Sertic The Marren and Page Case List Arnold v Arnold The Marren and Page Case List Finley v Finley Las Vegas retirement law expert Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Discussion Feral Paralegals The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson The Marren and Page Case List Peterson v Peterson |