 
|
The Special Problem of Divorce Decrees Entered in Foreign Countries as to D
Learn more about The Special Problem of Divorce Decrees Entered in Foreign Countries as to D.
4. The difference between the amounts calculated in subparagraph 3. shall be the monetary transfer necessary between the parents for the care of the child, subject to an 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 court’s finding that the ability of the member to prosecute or defend is "materially affected" by his or her active duty service,7 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.8 The case involved substantial property and because of that, the case was referred out to a special master. The husband had substantial property in trust and received income off of the trust for which he put forth no community effort. The master found, and the district court approved the finding, that the husband rendered no services of value to his separate property. The master found there were no children born of the marriage and that the parties owned no community property. Quoting at length from a law review article analyzing the mathematics of the situation, the court found that acceptance of the husband¡¯s argument would have allowed him to collect the entirety of the accumulating "earnings" on the marital property accumulated by both parties. Three judges dissented.5 SUP> It is more difficult to conceptualize a presumptive maximum deviation upward where the statutory presumptive maximum did not apply to reduce guideline support. When a minority time-share parent makes less than about $40,000 per year, even the one-child presumptive maximum does not activate, and any upward deviation based on the lack of normal visitation would have to be tailored to some approximation of the additional costs being borne in the majority time-share parent’s household for the lack of the minority time-share parent’s direct contribution. C) If a spouse or a dep end ent child eligible or en titled to receive a particular benefit under this paragraph is eligible or entitled to receive that benefit under another provision of law, the eligibility or entitlement of that spouse or former spouse or dependent child to such benefit shall be determined under such other provision of law instead of th s paragraph. SUP> The courts holding that the SBP should be maintained seem to impliedly realize, but not explicitly state, that the members’ survivorship interest in the former spouse’s benefits is automatic and free, while the spousal survivorship in the member’s benefits requires payment of a premium. None of the decisions goes into detail, comparing what the member or the spouse would actually receive in the event of the death of the other, or whether the results fit into the theory of equitable or community property and debt division. The parties divorced in 1995 and had three children. The mother received primary physical custody. The mother remarried. Her husband was a member of the Air Force. The husband then received a transfer to Japan. The mother filed a motion with the court seeking permission to move. The father filed a countermotion seeking a change in custody. The district court entered an order denying permission to move and granting the father’s request if the mother did move. The order was entered without a hearing. B> The basic child support obligation shall be multiplied by 1.5 to arrive at a shared custody basic child support obligation. The shared custody basic child support obligation is apportioned to each parent according to his or her income. In turn, a child support obligation is computed for each parent by multiplying that parent's portion of the shared custody child support obligation by the percentage of time the children spend with that parent. The respective basic child support obligations are then offset, with the parent owing rnore basic child support paying the difference between the two arnounts. The transfer for the basic obligation for the parent owing less basic child support shall be set at zero dollars. As a strategic point, any former spouse facing a challenge from the member to the jurisdiction of the Court to divide a retirement on jurisdictional grounds (as with the Tucker case discussed above) would probably be well-served by a contemporaneous partition action in the jurisdiction of the member’s residence. Both sides would then be faced with an equivalent waste of time and resources (reasons cited by the dissent in Wagner v. Wagner, supra, for why the majority’s reading of the statute was illogical), and might result in a stipulation to resolve the entire case in one jurisdiction, as would have been most reasonable in the first place. The cases continue to appear, although some States with published authority on the subject are not publishing the follow-up cases, apparently because they are not seen as particularly precedential. The parties had been married from 1949 to 1957, but they resumed cohabitation "almost immediately after their divorce," and remained together until they separated in 1981. Some real estate was owned by the parties in the form "husband and wife as joint tenants." The woman sought a restraining order prohibiting disposal of the property, declaratory relief stating that she was the owner of half of it, and an equitable distribution. The Supreme Court held the principles of res judicata barred the mother from reasserting an action to determine paternity or compel support, but that the child was not so barred. In addition, the child or the State may seek to modify the provisions of a compromise agreement intended to provide the child with support to the extent that the judgment or order is being enforced in this state, and the state of Nevada may provide that all such orders are modifiable. The Court also held that nothing in Nevada’s Parentage Act barred the child or an appropriate public agency in another state from seeking to compel additional support in a later action instituted in another state. The Court further held that the provisions of 125B mandating periodic review of orders for the support of a child apply to the provisions of a compromise agreement entered into pursuant to NRS 126.141(1) (b). B> IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that if Alternate Payee should predecease Member, Alternate Payee’s portion of the retirement benefits will continue to be paid to Alternate Payee’s estate. 65279;Very few courts have reached the opposite result." Others have reached that opposite result, just to be reversed on appeal or upon narrow findings of special circumstances." benefits upon divorce just as "vested" as those of the member.1 The court waded through just about all the kinds of claims made by members attempting to redirect to themselves funds already awarded to their former spouses - the "indirect violation" or "spirit of" Mansell argument, exemption from community property law by reason of application for a federally-paid disability argument, and the allegation that protecting the spouse would circumvent "Congressional intent" or violate the Supremacy Clause. The court was unimpressed on all counts.2 The Air Force "expects" that its members will support their families, and will recoup BAH3 payments if it concludes that the member is receiving the "with-dependent" rate but not supporting dependents, but basically pushes the matter to the civilian courts.4 The Marine Corps is more specific, requiring its members to provide the greater of a specific sum per dependent or a specified percentage of the BAH and certain other benefits.5 The father contested the constitutionality of the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court noted that the constitutionality of statutes were reviewed de novo with the burden being on the challenger to make a clear showing of the unconstitutionality of a statute. The Court further noted that an appellant must prove that the statute is "so imprecise, and vagueness so permeates its text, that persons of ordinary intelligence cannot understand what conduct is prohibited, and the enactment authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Id. at 325. The Court concluded that a person of ordinary intelligence could easily understand what constitutes "without good cause," concerning the father’s failure to pay child support as the phrase is well understood. Moreover, because NRS 201.051 was an affirmative defense statute, it did not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Id. at 325. As to NRS 201.020, the Court concluded that the plain language of the statute is clear and held that any arrearages reduced to judgment were properly included in the calculation of the $10,000 threshold set forth in the statute because arrearages originate from and are "directly and exclusively correlative to the court-ordered obligation to pay support." Id. at 325. B> While the presence or absence of a significant separate property estate by one of two married persons might be of interest to a Nevada divorce court considering an award of alimony, it is technically irrelevant to Nevada community property law. 4. The difference between the amounts calculated in subparagraph 3. shall be the monetary transfer necessary between the parents for the care of the child, subject to an Proponents asserted that there was a value of establishing some level of consistency between case and departments, and predictability in any give] case, because litigation of the "What the heck, giv. it a try" variety could be reduced - on both sides - j there was some kind of objective methodology for establishing a presumptive spousal support award that could then be varied (up or down) in accordance with the particular facts of the case. Critics protested that any such approach "eliminates judicial independence" or "hinders good lawyering" - the same sort of complaints that were heard when the concept of child support guidelines were first proposed. The former spouse must not be covered by an employer-sponsored health care plan. If there is such a plan, however, and coverage thereunder is terminated (voluntarily or otherwise), eligibility for benefits is restored. The father had assaulted the mother and was later convicted of misdemeanor battery/domestic violence. The district court had held an evidentiary hearing. The district court changed custody to father. Because the father was found guilty of domestic violence beyond a reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court concluded that the incident qualified as an act of domestic violence. The Court found that there was no indication that the district court have due weight to or even considered the rebuttable presumption of NRS 125.480(5). The Court held the district court abused its discretion by failing to expressly consider all necessary components rebuttable presumption under NRS 125.480 that a person who, by clear and convincing evidence has committed an act of domestic violence that sole or joint custody is not in the best interests of the child. The change of custody to the father was In November 1990, father obtained temporary custody of the parties’ two children by way of protective order. For the prior year, the mother had primary physical custody of the children. A master held hearings on the case and found the children were sexually molested and that stepfather was the likely suspect. The temporary protective order was extended. A trial was held in July 1993, regarding the father’s motion to permanently change custody and to extend the protective order. The district court denied the father’s motions, gave mother full custody, suspended the father’s visitation rights and restricted the father’s communication with the children. Later, the mother filed a motion for attorney’s fees. In September 1993, the district court judge, who incidentally, had been the master who originally recommended the children be temporarily placed with the father and found the children had been sexually molested, granted the mother’s request for attorney’s fees of $23,325 under NRS 18.010(2)(b) and awarded her the fees she had paid to a medical expert. If the marriage overlapped service by less than ten years, the right still exists, but the spouse has to obtain the monthly payments from the retired member rather than directly from the military pay center. For example, presume the member-spouse is the defendant, served in Nevada, but he expressly refuses consent to the court’s jurisdiction, claims that his presence in Nevada is solely by reason of assignment, and that his State of residence and domicile are elsewhere, say in Florida. The spouse could then file a parallel action in Florida, and serve that action on the member, with the claimed intention of letting the two jurisdictions figure out which action should proceed. Georgia X nbsp; 2. Fern; members lose argument of government taking Fern v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 580 (1988), aff’d, 908 F.2d 955 (Fed. Cir. 1990), was an unusual one in this field, as the defendant was not a former spouse but the United States itself. The suit sought to have the USFSPA declared invalid to the extent that it entitled the government to reduce the retired pay flowing to the members themselves; in other words, the members contended that irrespective of any award to any former spouse, the full sum of retired pay should be paid to the members. It alleged unconstitutional "taking" of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, an unconstitutional impairment of their individual contracts with the United States (by which they alone were to receive the entirety of their retirement benefits), and that spousal awards under the USFSPA were due process violations. The court addressed the constitutional challenges head on, and found that there was no constitutional issue in state court division of military retired pay under the USFSPA. UP> 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 is 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.1 This is a mistake because any such stipulation or court order is simply unenforceable - a court order compelling beneficiary status cannot be enforced. Under the laws setting up these insurance plans the former spouse cannot be made the owner of the policy, and the insured has complete freedom to designate or re-designate the intended beneficiary of the program. The federal courts, early and forcefully, held that the programs were "the congressional mode of affording a uniform and comprehensive system of life insurance for members and veterans of the armed forces of the United States," and the resulting benefits were therefore immune from state court division or allocation, even when community property was the source of the premiums paying for the policy. A host of similar programs have been established, and expired, since 1919. In April 1982, the father filed a motion to change custody and to eliminate his child support obligations under the parties’ Maryland divorce decree. The mother opposed noting that she was granted primary custody under the Maryland decree, that the child was living with her, and that the decree required the father to pay support until the child was 21. The district court required the father to pay child support for the child until he reached 18 years of age. In sum, I would uphold the district court's order as consistent with Nevada statutes that presumptively favor joint custody, especially agreed-upon joint custody, and require that before a joint custody decree is modified, it must be shown that the child's best interest requires the modification. As district courts have broad discretion in deciding custody and support, so long as the policies set by statute are applied, the district court properly adjusted the parties' timeshare agreement and declined to modify the child support obligation to which the parties agreed. B) The Secretary concerned shall hold th e am aunt retain ed un der clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) until such time as that Secretary is provided with a court order which has been certified by the member and the spouse or former spouse to be valid and applicable to the retained amount. Upon being provided with such an order, the Secretary shall pay the retained amount in accordance with the order. You can find The Special Problem of Divorce Decrees Entered in Foreign Countries as to D In Search of a Coherent Theoretical Model for Alimony Section III Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Part Two B Thrift Savings Plan for Military Members The Marren and Page Case List Sprenger v Sprenger The Marren and Page Case List Bauwens v Evans Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection fkgls Family Law and Contingency Fees Time to Reconsider The Marren and Page Case List Harris v Harris Libro v Walls and Love v Love Teuton Amicus Brief The Marren and Page Case List Renshaw v Renshaw and Wallaker v Wallaker The Marren and Page Williams v Williams Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section III Subsection Public Employees Retirement System PERS Benefits Section II Subsection B retirement benefits Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Hedlund Brief Amicus Discussion of Issues Court-Ordered Divisions of the TSP and Survivorship Benefits for the TSP Elko child support expert An Introduction to Pensions in Nevada Divorce Law Section I Marren and Page Case List The Special Problem of Divorce Decrees Entered in Foreign Countries as to D available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map The Marren and Page Case List Rush v Rush Gilbert v Warren Love me Love My Dog Part two of two Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Three Section Four Continued The Marren and Page Case List Laws v Ross Milisch v Hillhouse and Verheyden Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Divorcing the Military and Serving the Civil Service Section II Subsection The Marren and Page Case List McGlone v McGlone |
|
|