 
|
Withdrawal and Borrowing of Money from the TSP
Learn more about Withdrawal and Borrowing of Money from the TSP.
Withdrawing and Borrowing Money from the TSP during serviceIn this case, Ms. Rivero alleged that the district court judge was biased in favor of Mr. Rivero because he is an attractive man and was biased against Ms. Rivero because she is an attractive woman. Ms. Rivero also alleged that the judge was determined to rule only for Mr. Rivero and that the judge was not interested in hearing the case on the merits. The only evidence of these allegations are statements in Ms. Rivero's motion to disqualify and her attorney's affidavit. The hearing transcripts do not reveal any bias on the district court judge's part. Thus, Ms. Rivero has not established legally cognizable grounds for disqualification. Id. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court judge did not abuse her discretion when she refused to recuse herself. We also conclude that the chief judge properly denied Ms. Rivero's motion to disqualify the district court judge without considering a reply from Ms. Rivero or holding a hearing on the motion because Ms. Rivero did not establish legally cognizable grounds for an inference of bias. Therefore, summary dismissal of the motion was proper. Id. It is worth pausing to note that the various different retirement schemes, public and private, have a dizzying array of survivorship vehicles, which range from going into effect automatically unless specific steps are timely taken to prevent it,4 to being lost forever by silence unless very specific steps are timely taken to preserve them.5 Several members of the Executive Council were instrumental in deflecting what would have been incredibly bad legislation, in the form of A.B. 292. That bill would have significantly damaged the whole scheme of community property by disallowing division of unvested retirement benefits, among other things. It was detected the day before its final vote in the Senate, having passed entirely through the Assembly, and Senate Judiciary, without any notice to the Council whatsoever. The dissent would have drawn the line for when a Hague return was triggered by the fundamental determination of whether the it was a custodial, or non-custodial parent who took the child and left a country, ordering a return in the latter, but not the former, circumstance. By the dissents analysis, the removal of a child from a country by a custodial parent simply is not "wrongful," and the left-behind non-custodian is not entitled to return of the child, but only assistance in securing access for visitation. Since there are a multitude of statutes, cases, and court rules permitting a fee award in some circumstances, this question would appear to go on the pile of topics made less clear by recent appellate holdings, perhaps to be clarified in some later case, or by amendment to the rules of appellate procedure. The wife argued that the commingling of the community and separate property was so extensive that the husband failed to sustain his burden that the separate property was not transmuted into community property. The district court declined to accept the wifes contention. The Supreme Court reversed. The Court determined that "except for consideration of the economic consequences of spousal abuse or marital misconduct, evidence of spousal abuse or marital misconduct does not provide a compelling reason under NRS 125B.150(1)(b) for making an unequal disposition of community property. If spousal abuse or marital misconduct of one party has had an adverse economic impact on the other party, it may be considered by the district court in determining whether an unequal division of community property is warranted." Id. at 1190. The case was remanded to determine whether there had been such an economic impact. PAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"> While the Supreme Court noted Malmquist applies to cases where there are community property contributions to separate property and where separate property is contributed to community property, the Court reversed finding: On appeal, the husband sought to have court find the parties remained married so that wifes property transferred to him. The Court held that the district court could modify property or alimony terms without vacating the divorce itself, under the concept of divisible divorce, without violating NRS 125.130. The majority opinion reversed the property provisions of the default decree but left the divorce itself in place. The Court held this result was compatible with Gojack v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 95 Nev. 443, 596 P.2d 237 (1979). The Court appeared to base much of its result in equity by stating: ". .. Wayne now desires to posthumously confer the status of a deceased wife upon Kathleen in order to retain her share of the community property. To permit him to do so would engage the judicial process in an affront to equity. This we refuse to do." Id. at 976-77. The Court also noted that "equity considers as done that which ought to be done." Id. at 978. Partial dissent by Young and Rose, who would have held that setting aside a default decree of divorce did leave the parties married, along with providing a variety of quotable dicta on the oppressiveness of attorneys fees. The bottom line to all of this is that the question of when fees incurred on appeal can be considered in the trial court is more nuanced than it had appeared. However, there does not seem to be any good way to square Berosinis "fees are prohibited unless explicitly authorized" holding with the "fees are authorized unless prohibited" message of Miller. The former case was not addressed in any way in the latter - apparently no one noticed the conflicting directives. 1. When a vacancy occurs before the expiration of any term of office in the Supreme Court or among the district judges, the Governor shall appoint a justice or judge from among three nominees selected for such individual vacancy by the Commission on Judicial Selection. Minutes" are notes, often taken in shorthand or abbreviations, by the court clerk and later (sometimes, much later) transcribed as a summary record of what transpired in a court hearing. The practice of having the clerks take such notes has been around a long time - probably for as long as clerks have attended hearings. In a nine year overlap case, the former spouse has a putative 22.5% interest (i.e., 9 20 x ). Some courts, seeking to make their awards enforceable, will characterize the property award as alimony upon request. Where the court cannot or will not do so, the attorney for the spouse has something of a dilemma, which is sometimes resolved by negotiations involving trade of a few percentage points of value for a stipulated award of irrevocable alimony. Nevada has an uncomfortable relationship with the law of waiver. Our case law generally favors the honoring of agreements, including waivers. See, e.g., Barelli v. Barelli, 113 Nev. 873, 944 P.2d 246 (1997) (enforcing alimony waiver); State of Montana v. Lopez, 112 Nev. 1213, 925 P.2d 880 (1996) (enforcing child support waiver by conduct); McKellar v. McKellar, 110 Nev. 200, 871 P.2d 296 (1994) (even right to child support can be waived by express agreement); Parkinson v. Parkinson, 106 Nev. 481, 796 P.2d 229 (1990) ("the devils bargain"; same). 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 While Casas was widely cited and largely followed elsewhere, not all aspects of the decision had a long life, as discussed below. Today, the case is most frequently cited for the proposition that equitable defenses can be raised against a legal claim to arrearages.1 9)(A) A spouse or former spouse of a member or former member of the armed forces referred to in paragraph (2)(A), while receiving payments in accordance with this subsection, shall be entitled to receive medical and dental care, to use commissary and exchange stores, and to receive any other benefit that a spouse or a former spouse of a retired member of the armed forces is entitled to receive on the basis of being a spouse or former spouse, as the case may be, of a retired member of the armed forces in the same manner as if th e member or former member referred to in paragraph (2)(A) was entitle d to retired pay. 65279;These cases collectively stand for the proposition that actual division of the retired pay at divorce was limited to disposable pay, with any shortfall to the spouse to be compensated by other means. Once an award was made, however, in post-decree enforcement, the spouse could be compensated for any action taken by the member that lowered sums payable to the spouse. 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. We agree with the trial court. The plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys fees pursuant to A.R.S. 12-348. Attorneys fees should not be limited by the fact that the plaintiffs are indigent and that their attorneys accepted the case on a pro bono basis. It would be a paradox to hold that litigants who are able to pay will have their attorneys fees reimbursed while attorneys who represent litigants unable to pay will be forced to remain unpaid. Such a result would be contrary to the legislative intent in enacting A.R.S. 12-348. B> IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that payments to SPOUSE shall be made as called for in this Decree beginning on the first day of the first month following entry of this Decree. In accordance with NRS 193.021, "Personal property" includes dogs, all domestic animals, and birds. Basically, your beloved pet has as much significance in law as the expensive collar he or she is wearing. According to NRS 123.130 and case law, all property acquired after marriage is presumed community property, which is to be divided equally. Notwithstanding that, pet owners see their animals as more then just another inanimate object. Over time they become members of the family, but the law demands us to place a monetary value on "Fluffy." 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,1 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.2 A host of similar programs have been established, and expired, since 1919. Use the below paragraph if following the view that the spousal share is fixed at the Memberfs first eligibility for retirement as in the California cases. And the "factors" - as set out in either Sprenger or Buchanan/Rodriguez - are of decidedly little assistance in quantifying an alimony award appropriate in any particular case, stating only that courts should "consider" such things as "the financial condition of the parties," "the nature and value of the parties' respective property," "the duration of the marriage," and the parties' "income and earning capacity." With the exception of the portion of the opinion affirming the order denying disqualification of the family court judge, therefore, I respectfully dissent. For example, while the child custody jurisdictional rules are deliberately child-centered, the jurisdictional rules for support initiation are deliberately expansive, and titled "Extended Personal Jurisdiction."4 There are multiple bases for exercise of child support jurisdiction over a non-resident obligor, operating independently and in the alternative:5 The full history of the dual compensation rules are beyond the scope of these materials.2 The short version is that military retired pay was reduced for members who retired from the military and began civilian work for the federal government. Obviously, any reduction in the amount of retired pay payable to a member affected the spousal interest as well. Court decisions did not appear to follow any clear theoretical model. 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. In this case, Ms. Rivero alleged that the district court judge was biased in favor of Mr. Rivero because he is an attractive man and was biased against Ms. Rivero because she is an attractive woman. Ms. Rivero also alleged that the judge was determined to rule only for Mr. Rivero and that the judge was not interested in hearing the case on the merits. The only evidence of these allegations are statements in Ms. Rivero's motion to disqualify and her attorney's affidavit. The hearing transcripts do not reveal any bias on the district court judge's part. Thus, Ms. Rivero has not established legally cognizable grounds for disqualification. Id. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court judge did not abuse her discretion when she refused to recuse herself. We also conclude that the chief judge properly denied Ms. Rivero's motion to disqualify the district court judge without considering a reply from Ms. Rivero or holding a hearing on the motion because Ms. Rivero did not establish legally cognizable grounds for an inference of bias. Therefore, summary dismissal of the motion was proper. Id. In any case involving an order providing for payment of child support(as defined in section 459(i)(2) of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C.S. 659(i)(2)[) by a member who has never been married to the other parent of the child, the provisions of th is section shall not apply, and the case shall be subject to the provisions of section 459 of such Act [42 U.S.C.S. 659[. As to improvements to real estate, the Court found that "usually" simple reimbursement without interest is the proper measure, unless the party making the claim can establish that appreciation of the property was due to the improvements, not the market, in which case the trial court may apportion appreciation to the contribution of the party making the claim. I. In order to clarify the definition of joint physical custody, we first address the definition of legal custody. Physical and legal custody involve separate legal rights and control separate factual scenarios. Therefore, we discuss both legal and physical custody to clarify the distinctions. Where a putative tort claim is presented in a Family Court action, the Court is required to make a decision as to how it should proceed. (Where the parties have each filed in different courts, the two courts typically confer and one court or the other - usually the Family Court - makes the requisite call.) You can find Withdrawal and Borrowing of Money from the TSP The Marren and Page Case List Harris v Harris Libro v Walls and Love v Love Rivero v Rivero Opinion IV B Subsection Two Coping with COLAs The Marren and Page Case List Special Problems and Considerations in International Military-related Cases What Almost Happened to Child Support in Nevada and Why We Still Have to Fi Factors to Consider in Deciding Whether to File in Federal or State Court The Marren and Page Case List In re Wilsons Estate and Burdick v Pope The Marren and Page Case List Vincent L G v State Divorce of Child and Fami Welfares Critical Error The Concept of Divisible Divorce Las Vegas child custody expert lawyer What is Considered Separate Property Including Characterization of Earnings Initial Petition for Return Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Withdrawal and Borrowing of Money from the TSP available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above. Site Map The Marren and Page Case List Chesler v Chesler and Prins v Prins The Marren and Page Case List Choate v Ransom and Braddock v Braddock The Left Behind Parents Rights of Custody What to Argue If Seeking to Prevent a Court with Jurisdiction from Exercisi Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section V Subsection D Divorce Jurisdiction The Marren and Page Case List Ellett v Ellett Gojack v Second Judicial Dist |