SUP>
Whether or not another action has been filed elsewhere makes a difference. In a strictly default divorce situation when no other action is pending elsewhere, a Nevada court with jurisdiction over only one party can dissolve the marriage, but not adjudicate any rights as to alimony, child support, or child custody without obtaining personal jurisdiction over both parties.2 Where there is another action pending, granting a "status-only" divorce effectively bifurcates the action. Since this is forbidden under Gojack, one State must defer to the other under principles of comity and abstention. Finally, and most crass, permitting the paralegal mills to continue cranking out hundreds or thousands of defective domestic relations complaints and orders is bad for business - except for the business of repairing the damage done. But the costs to the public? The attorney’s line has been eliminated. The process has become so much slower that they have installed a "call-the-next-number" system much like the DMV. Waits are longer - muchlonger - than they ever have been. How much longer? Suffice it to say that the County has installed several rows of seats throughout the lobby for those unable to stand long enough to get to the front. For example, the plan in question might not accrue earnings daily, or even monthly - some plans have an annualearnings allocation date. Earnings become part of the accrued benefit only when they are allocated. Distributing 50% to the spouse the day prior to an annual allocation could deprive the spouse of a considerable sum of community property accrual. Additionally, failure to conform the correct procedures could result in disastrous tax and other effects for one party, the other, or both.1
The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the husband "failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the district court’s judgment was anything other than ´equitable and just’ or that it failed to consider the requirements of NRS 125.150." Oddly, the Court’s affirmance did not reference the rehabilitative alimony provisions, disregarding the label assigned by the district court, and treating the "rehabilitative" award as general temporary alimony rather than under the restrictions of the rehabilitative alimony provisions, none of which were mentioned. from the child support guidelines were set out the statutes. The Court further noted that findings of fact must be made when there is a deviation. The Court additionally noted that the "´basis for deviation’ must be found in the unfairness, the injustice, which may result to the secondary custodian if he or she, after making substantial contribution of a financial or equivalent nature to the support of the child, were required to pay the full formula amount,’" citing to Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 105 Nev. 546, 552, 779 P.2d 532, 536 (1989) (quoting NRS 125B.080(5)). Id. at 320. The Court cited extensively to Barbagallo and noted that courts should exercise considerable discretion before reducing the formula amounts, that as the secondary custodian’s expenses increase, the expenses of the primary custodian do not decrease, that the primary custodian is the one who has to pay many fixed expenses related to the children including rent, mortgage payments, utilities, car maintenance, and medical expenses, and that those expenses were not usually noticeably diminished because of the non-primary custodian sharing in some of those burdens. The Court concluded that the district court’s order did ". . . not adequately support a deviation from the statutory formula, and the district court’s failure to set forth findings of fact as to the basis for the deviatio constituted reversible error." Id. at 321. This article was excerpted from a complete treatment of this subject matter, entitled Divorcing the Military: How to Attack, How to Defend, which can be viewed, along with all supporting footnotes, at http://www.willicklawgroup.com/published_works. Several of the disability cases involved situations where a divorce decree was entered, the member later applied for disability payments, and the former spouse brought a contempt proceeding. The grounds asserted in Amie for distinguishing McCarroll do not appear to be analytically valid. The claim in Amie that the wife in McCarroll "had a fair opportunity during the divorce litigation to litigate the fraud allegations" is not supportable; the face of the McCarroll opinion shows that the parties in that case had orally agreed to divide their property, but that their agreement "did not include the pension and no mention was made of it during the divorce action." 96 Nev. at 456, 611 P.2d 205. In other words, as of the time of divorce, the facts of McCarroll were indistinguishable from those of Amie.
This article was excerpted from a complete treatment of this subject matter, entitled Love me Love My Dog, which can be viewed, along with all supporting footnotes, at http://www.willicklawgroup.com/published_works No one likes to think about it much, but from all appearances, whether life is approached optimistically1 or pessimistically,2 and irrespective of willingness,3 it appears that death is inevitable.4 Probably the best we can do as divorce practitioners is to acknowledge that the death of everyone involved in a divorce is certain, but of unpredictable order and timing,5 and use that knowledge to attempt to structure our orders and decrees in such a way that as little harm as possible will befall the interests we have been employed to create or protect, and (perhaps most of all) fully inform our clients of the financial effects that will flow from the death of one party or the other. This article was excerpted from a complete treatment of this subject matter, entitled Protecting the Interest of and Getting Money from People in the Military What Can and Cant Be Done, which can be viewed, along with all supporting footnotes, at http://www.willicklawgroup.com/published_works Fourth, requiring an appointee to re-submit an application for appointment, and to repeat interviews with the Commission on Judicial Selection, while simultaneously sitting as a judge would be unduly disruptive to the functioning of the court that the appointment was intended to serve.
Protecting the Interest of and Getting Money from People in the Military Wh, Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Three Section Two, Rivero v Rivero Opinion III B, Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section II Subsection B, The Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act, The Marren and Page Case List Ellett v Ellett Gojack v Second Judicial Dist, Teuton Amicus Brief Factual History, Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Approches Relating to Unequal Joint Custody, Las Vegas family law expert, Las Vegas attorney Marshall Willick, Child Custody Modification Jurisdiction, Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar, Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar, Rivero State Bar Amicus Brief Subsection II B, The Marren and Page Case List Oren v Deptartment of Human Resources, A Brief Aside Regarding Disability and the TSP, Nevada TSP lawyer Protecting the Interest of and Getting Money from People in the Military Wh available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above.
Reciprocal Links: Protecting the Interest of and Getting Money from People in the Military Wh Protecting the Interest of and Getting Money from People in the Military Wh Protecting the Interest of and Getting Money from People in the Military Wh Protecting the Interest of and Getting Money from People in the Military Wh Protecting the Interest of and Getting Money from People in the Military Wh ethical search engine optimization Tucson AZ web site hosting provider
|
