Troyan, A Legendary Actuarial Consulting Firm, For Pension Evaluations.

Court Admissible Reports Per Your Jurisdiction at an affordable cost.

We specialize in retirement plan analysis for divorce & economic loss matters

court admitted pension experts, available to testify nationwide.

Pension evaluations prepared for lawyers, mediators, & non-attorney litigants.

We guarantee your qdro gets approved!

headquarters of troyan, inc. Home of accucalc & accuqdro software

Pension Evaluation Lawyer Services Downloads Fee Schedule Pay Online Online Order Form
Pension Evaluation
Basic Pension Principles
Cases
Community Property
Dividing Marital or Community Property
Divorce & Retirement FAQs
Equitable Distribution
Experience with Your Plan
Pension Evaluation Issues
Pensions
Retirement Terms
Social Security Offsets
State Pension Evaluation Alerts
State Pension Evaluation Classification
State Specific Information
State Retirement Plans and Divorce Information
State Listing of Statuses Disallowing Personal Identities In QDROs
State Analysis of IRA Exemptions
Collection Laws and Exemptions by State
Tax Treatment in Pension Evaluation
Distribution from Qualified Plans
Webutation
Click here to learn more about pension evaluations
Get a pension evaluation in less than 1 week Click here to read and print our company forms

Social Security Benefits

Listed Chronologically

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

STATE EX REL. HIGHLANDER v. RUDDUCK, Unpublished Opinion (2004)

Case No. 2004-1189.

Decided September 23, 2004.

{1} By assignment, respondent Judge John W. Rudduck presided over Bubp v. Bubp, case No. 2001-0460-DRB, a divorce case filed in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. On January 3, 2003, Judge Rudduck sealed the entire record of the Bubp divorce case, including pleadings, filings, and transcripts. Judge Rudduck sealed the record upon an agreed judgment entry after being "informed that sealing of such records has traditionally been permitted in the Adams County Court." Relator, Sharon Highlander, counters that the sealing of divorce records was an unwritten and informal court policy "at best."

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

HARSHBARGER v. HARSHBARGER, Unpublished Decision (7-23-2004)

C.A. Case No. 2003-CA-36.

Rendered on July 23, 2004.

{1} Defendant-appellant Dewey Dale Harshbarger, Jr., appeals from a judgment and decree of divorce ordering the distribution of marital assets. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in using the "hypothetical Social Security offset" in determining the portion of Ms. Harshbarger's Civil Service pension that is subject to division. He further contends that the trial court erred in assigning any value to the marital business known as "MacDuff's of Norman's Cay."

Alabama Case Law

HALL v. HALL, 2021201 (Ala.Civ.App. 7-2-2004)

No. 2021201.

Decided July 2, 2004.

Hilbert C. Hall ("the husband") appeals from a judgment divorcing him from Tammy M. Hall ("the wife"), dividing the marital assets and debts, and awarding the wife $500 per month in periodic alimony. The husband raises six issues on appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

New Jersey Superior Court Reports

PANETTA v. PANETTA, A-1424-02T5 (N.J. Super. 7-1-2004)

No. A-1424-02T5

Decided July 1, 2004

In this post-judgment matrimonial matter, we focus on two issues: the appropriate formula for calculating the marital share of plaintiff's federal pension and whether plaintiff is entitled to an offset against defendant's share of his pension for defendant's social security benefits.[fn1]

Illinois Supreme Court Reports

IN RE MARRIAGE OF CROOK, 211 Ill.2d 437 (2004)

Docket No. 95132 - Agenda 17 - May 2003

Opinion filed June 24, 2004.

The petitioner, Robert L. Crook, appeals from the decision of the appellate court holding that: (1) the trial court erred in its division of retirement funds, and (2) the marital estate was not entitled to reimbursement of $40,000 for payment made on a joint loan for improvements to nonmarital property. 334 Ill. App.3d 377. This court allowed Robert's petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill.2d R. 315. We reverse in part and affirm in part.

Ohio Appellate Reports

KEEN v. KEEN, 157 Ohio App.3d 379 (2004)

C.A. Case No. 20252.

Rendered on June 4, 2004.

{1} This is an appeal from an order entered by the general division of the court of common pleas of Montgomery County that dismissed a plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We agree with the court's holding, and accordingly affirm.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

CAIN v. HAMRICK-CAIN, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2004)

Case No. 2002-A-0086.

May 14, 2004.

{1} Appellant, Kenneth R. Cain, appeals from a final judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, ordering him to pay spousal support to appellee, Jana S. Hamrick-Cain, awarding appellee attorney fees in connection with this litigation, awarding appellee one-half appellant's pension through the State Teachers Retirement System ("STRS"), and ordering appellant to pay appellee any child support for which he may be in arrears. For the reasons set forth below, appellant's first, second, and third assignments of error are not well-taken. Appellant's fourth assignment of error is moot.

Iowa Reports

IN RE MARRIAGE OF ANDERSEN, 3-478/02-1020 (Iowa App. 3-24-2004)

No. 3-478/02-1020

Filed March 24, 2004

Keith Andersen appeals from the support, property division, and attorney fee provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Sabrina Andersen. We modify the child support and property division provisions to the extent we determine that Keith's income should be reduced by the amount of an attorney fee lien on his workers' compensation benefits, and that he should have been awarded a percentage of Sabrina's pension plan. We modify the district court's decision concerning attorney fees and award $1,000 in trial attorney fees to Keith. The remainder of the district court's decree is affirmed.

South Dakota Supreme Court Reports

MULDER v. SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, 2004 SD 10 (2004)

No. 22731

Opinion Filed January 28, 2004

[1.] The Department of Social Services (DSS) issued a final decision upholding its calculation of Ervin Mulder's "available" income for determining his long term care benefits under Medicaid. The circuit court affirmed and Mulder appeals, arguing that his available income should not include the amount he pays for alimony and that the determination is an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of Medicaid. We reverse.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

WATSON v. WATSON, Unpublished Decision (11-26-2003)

No. 03AP-104.

Rendered on November 26, 2003.

{1} Plaintiff-appellant, Evelyn Watson, appeals from the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, granting appellant and defendant-appellee, Francis D. Watson, a divorce from one another, allocating the parties' parental rights and responsibilities and dividing the parties' property and debts.

Alabama Case Law

CRAWFORD v. CRAWFORD, 876 So.2d 1167 (Ala.Civ.App. 2003)

No. 2020489.

Decided October 17, 2003.

Raymond F. Crawford, Jr. ("the husband"), and Patricia Ann Crawford ("the wife") were divorced after 30 years of marriage. The husband, a former railroad employee, is disabled and draws both disability benefits and railroad retirement benefits. The wife sought, and the trial court awarded her, a portion of the husband's railroad retirement benefits. The trial court's judgment awards the wife "33 1/3% of the husband's railroad retirement." It further states that "[t]he husband shall immediately begin paying 1/3 of all railroad retirement benefits received by him to the wife."

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

MANSELL v. MANSELL, Unpublished Decision (9-2-2003)

Case No. 02CA52

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 2, 2003.

{1} Appellant, Vernal Mansell, and appellee, Mary Louise Mansell, were married on April 17, 1993. On August 1, 2000, appellee filed a complaint for divorce.

Illinois Appellate Court Reports

IN RE MARRIAGE OF HULSTROM, 342 Ill. App.3d 262 (2002)

No. 2-02-0960

July 29, 2003

Petitioner, Everett E. Hulstrom, appeals from the order of the circuit court denying his petition to modify the judgment dissolving the parties' marriage. We reverse as void the portion of the dissolution judgment dividing the marital property, and we remand the cause with directions.

Ohio State Reports

NEVILLE v. NEVILLE, 99 Ohio St.3d 275 (2003)

No. 2002-1173.

Decided July 23, 2003.

{1} Plaintiff-appellee, Joe E. Neville, and defendant-appellant, Judi K. Neville, were married on February 4, 1972. For almost 30 years, appellee was the primary wage earner while appellant stayed home and raised their three children, who are now emancipated. On September 20, 2000, appellee filed for divorce. At the time of the divorce hearing, held in May 2001, appellee was 52 years old and appellant was 50 years old.

Florida Case Law

JOHNSON v. JOHNSON, 847 So.2d 1157 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 2003)

Case No. 5D02-425.

Opinion filed June 27, 2003.

This is an appeal of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The former wife challenges aspects of the equitable distribution as well as the denial of her request for alimony. The parties were married for 13 years and had no children born of the marriage.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

DECHRISTEFERO v. DECHRISTEFERO, Unpublished Decision (6-13-2003)

CASE NO. 2001-T-0055.

June 13, 2003

{1} Both parties have raised issue with the divorce decree provisions concerning the division of various assets. Appellant also challenged the lower court's support rulings. For the reasons discussed below, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, as to appellant, is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. As to appellee's cross-appeal, the lower court's decision is affirmed.

Oregon Court of Appeals Reports

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF SHLITTER, 188 Or. App. 277 (2003)

99-1684-D-2(1); A113854.

Filed: June 12, 2003.

Husband appeals from a judgment dissolving the parties' 17-year marriage. He contends that the trial court erred in failing to divide the parties' marital debts equitably and in providing for an automatic future increase in his child support obligation.[fn1] On de novo review, ORS 19.415(3), we modify the division of debts and the child support obligation.

Iowa Reports

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF SCHEBEL, 2-773/02-0335 (Iowa App. 4-30-2003)

No. 2-773/02-0335.

Filed April 30, 2003.

Respondent-appellant, Roger A. Schebel, appeals the district court's denial of his "Application for Relief" from a provision in the decree dissolving his marriage to petitioner-appellee, Patricia A. Schebel. He contends the court erred in failing to declare the provision at issue to be void and unenforceable as in violation of federal law. We affirm.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

SLEESMAN v. SLEESMAN, Unpublished Decision (4-25-2003)

Case Number 7-02-11.

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY April 25, 2003.

{1} This appeal, having been heretofore placed on the accelerated calendar, is being considered pursuant to App.R. 11.1(E) and Loc.R. 12. Pursuant to Loc.R.12(5), we have elected to issue a full opinion in lieu of a judgment entry.

Missouri Case Law

BOHON v. BOHON, 102 S.W.3d 107 (Mo.App.W.D. 2003)

No. WD 61620

April 15, 2003

Terril L. Bohon (Wife) appeals the portion of the trial court's judgment dissolving her marriage to Sheridan Bohon (Husband) that divides the marital property and debts. The division of marital property included the trial court's consideration of the parties' pension benefits. Husband's pension benefits were $295,984. Wife's pension benefits totaled $694,971, but constituted a teacher retirement fund. Wife claims that the trial court erred in disproportionately dividing the marital property to benefit Husband because: (1) the trial court erroneously considered Wife's non-marital property, specifically the teacher's pension fund, when it awarded Husband between 79% to 83% and Wife 17% to 21% of the marital assets; and (2) the trial court failed to find that Husband's long term affair constituted the primary factor in the breakdown of the marriage. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for division of the marital property in accordance with this opinion.

Arkansas Cases

GRAY v. GRAY, 352 Ark. 443 (2003)

02-524

Opinion Delivered April 3, 2003

Appellant Dan M. Gray appeals that part of the circuit court's divorce decree dealing with division of appellee Nancy Coleman Gray's pension plan and his retirement benefits.[fn1] He urges that it was clear error to value and divide Nancy Gray's pension plan based on contributions made rather than based on its present value. He further contends that a portion of his Civil Service Retirement pension should be exempted from division, because that portion is in lieu of Social Security benefits, which are not subject to division as marital property. We affirm the decision of the circuit court on both points.

Tennessee Unpublished Opinions

BARLOW v. BARLOW, M1999-00749-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.

No. M1999-00749-COA-R3-CV.

Filed March 19, 2003.

These parties were married for twenty-seven years before the wife abandoned the marriage and sought a divorce which was uncontested. She was awarded one-half of the net marital estate, and rehabilitative alimony. Wife appeals, claiming that because of her illness she is entitled to more than 50 percent of the marital property, is entitled to alimony in futuro rather than rehabilitative alimony, and is entitled to attorney fees. We affirm the trial court's judgment, except as to the period of spousal support, which is extended from three years to five years. We also remand this case to the trial court for a determination of whether the post-judgment facts alleged by the husband warrant a further modification of the alimony award.

Hawaii Case Law

MINAKAMI v. MINAKAMI, 24121 (Haw. App. 2-7-2003)

No. 24121

February 7, 2003.

Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Melvin Tooru Minakami (Melvin) appeals from the following actions by the Family Court of the First Circuit Court entered on February 20, 2001: (1) "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Costs and Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to Rule 68, Hawai`i Family Court Rules and Judgment" and (2) "Decree Granting Absolute Divorce and Awarding Property Division" (Divorce Decree).

Missouri Case Law

IN RE MARRIAGE OF WOODSON, 92 S.W.3d 780 (Mo.banc 2003)

No. SC 84131

January 14, 2003

Dennis E. Woodson claims that the circuit court should have divided the teacher retirement benefits of his spouse, Belinda U. Woodson, that accrued during their marriage. Husband attacks the validity of section 169.572 RSMo 2000[fn1] as applied to a teacher also covered by social security. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 3. Wife cross-appeals the overall division of property. Affirmed.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

SCHWEINFURTH v. MEZA, Unpublished Decision (11-21-2002)

No. 80506.

Decided November 21, 2002.

{1} The domestic relations division of the court of common pleas granted Francisco Meza a divorce from Dorothy Schweinfurth on grounds that they had been living separate and apart without interruption or cohabitation for more than one year. The court made a detailed disposition of marital assets, and Meza appeals certain aspects of that order.

Iowa Reports

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF WOOLF, 1-1052/01-0878 (Iowa App. 11-15-2002)

No. 1-1052/01-0878

Filed November 15, 2002

Douglas Woolf appeals the economic provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. He contends: (1) the district court essentially adopted Alice Woolf's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, (2) his alimony obligation should be reduced and the award should terminate upon Alice's remarriage, (3) the property distribution is inequitable, (4) the visitation provisions are unworkable, (5) he should not have to maintain life insurance as security for the child support and alimony; (6) he is entitled to tax exemptions and deductions, and (7) the district court should not have ordered him to pay a portion of Alice's attorney fees. Both parties seek an award of appellate attorney fees. We affirm as modified.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

DUNN v. DUNN, Unpublished Decision (11-15-2002)

Appeal No. C-010282, C-010292, Trial No. DR-9801197.

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal November 15, 2002.

{1} The two appeals consolidated for this decision stem from a judgment of divorce granted to plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee Betty Dunn and defendant-appellee/cross-appellant James Dunn. Together, the parties raise seven assignments of error, all of which relate to the trial court's division of marital property and the award of spousal support to Betty Dunn. Because we find none of the assignments to have merit, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

McCLELLAN v. McCLELLAN, Unpublished Decision (11-13-2002)

C.A. No. 21065.

Decision and Journal Entry Dated: November 13, 2002.

{1} Plaintiff-Appellant Gene McClellan ("Husband") has appealed from a decision of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which affirmed a magistrate's decision that awarded continued spousal support to Defendant-Appellee Christine McClellan ("Wife"). This Court affirms.

Kentucky Reports

HOLMAN v. HOLMAN, 84 S.W.3d 903 (Ky. 2002)

No. 1999-SC-0525-DG.

June 13, 2002. Rehearing Denied October 17, 2002.

This appeal presents an issue of first impression in Kentucky. After thirteen (13) years of service as a firefighter, but before his pension vested, Appellant became totally and permanently occupationally disabled. Appellant retired and began receiving monthly disability retirement benefits. When his marriage to the Appellee was dissolved several years later, the trial court classified Appellant's future entitlement to disability retirement benefits as marital property and awarded Appellee a portion of those benefits. Were Appellant's disability retirement benefits properly classified as marital property? We hold that disability retirement benefits are properly classified as marital or nonmarital property according to the character of the property they replace. Accordingly, Appellant's future, post-dissolution disability retirement benefits, which replace his future nonmarital earnings as a firefighter, constitute Appellant's separate nonmarital property.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

BELL v. BELL, Unpublished Decision (10-7-2002)

Case Number 5-02-25.

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY October 7, 2002.

{1} This is an appeal from the judgment of the Domestic Relations Division of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas which granted a divorce and separated the property of Plaintiff-Appellee, Diane Bell, and Defendant-Appellant, Craig Bell.

Illinois Appellate Court Reports

IN RE MARRIAGE OF CROOK, 334 Ill. App.3d 377 (2002)

No. 4-01-1147

October 4, 2002

Petitioner, Robert Crook, and respondent, Patricia Crook, were granted a dissolution of marriage on May 11, 2000. On June 20, 2001, the trial court entered a supplemental order on ancillary issues, including the division of marital property. In dividing the marital property, the trial court awarded petitioner one-half of the present and future monthly payments respondent will receive from her pension plans. The court also ordered respondent to reimburse the marital estate for $40,000 of marital funds she contributed to her nonmarital estate. Respondent appeals these two aspects of the trial court's division of the marital property.

Louisiana Case Law

McKINSTRY v. McKINSTRY, 36,285 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/14/02); 824 So.2d 1260

No. 36,285-CA

August 14, 2002.

Pamela McKinstry appeals two judgments, the first of which declined to consider and the second of which dismissed, her claim to partition certain community property assets which had not yet been divided. She urges by two assignments of error that La.R.S. 9:2801.1, which became law on August 15, 2001, applies retroactively and allows the court to consider the value of her husband Byron McKinstry's social security benefits in dividing her Teachers' Retirement benefits. For the reasons expressed, we affirm.

Missouri Case Law

IN RE B.S.B., 76 S.W.3d 318 (Mo.App.W.D. 2002)

Nos. WD 60835, WD 60820

June 11, 2002

G.S.B. ("Father") appeals from two judgments entered in the Circuit Court of Cass County terminating his parental rights to his natural son, B.S.B., and his natural daughter, B.A.B.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

NEVILLE v. NEVILLE, Unpublished Decision (6-4-2002)

Case No. 01CA028.

Decided June 4, 2002.

Plaintiff-appellant Joe Neville appeals from the September 26, 2001, Judgment Entry of the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas adopting the Magistrate's Decision/Decree of Divorce.

Tennessee Unpublished Opinions

HALL v. HALL, M2000-01788-COA-R3-CV (Tenn.App. 4-19-2002)

No. M2000-01788-COA-R3-CV

Filed April 19, 2002

This is a divorce case. Appellant Mark Stephen Hall ("Husband") and appellee Sherry Ann Hall ("Wife") were married on February 26, 1972, in Louisiana. Shortly thereafter, the couple moved to Texas for about one year where Husband continued his career in the Air Force at Laughlin Air Force Base. During that time, Wife did not work outside the home. Thereafter, the parties moved to Louisiana, where Husband began working for BellSouth as an electronics technician. Husband earned additional income by opening a gun shop and working as a soccer referee.

Alaska Case Law

TENISON v. STATE, 38 P.3d 535 (Alaska App. 2001)

No. A-7583.

December 28, 2001.

Since 1998, Alaska law - AS 28.15.061(b) - has required all persons applying for a driver's license to supply their social security number (if they have one). In October 1998, Julia Louise Tenison's driver's license expired. She applied for renewal of the license but, for religious reasons, she refused to disclose her social security number. Because of this, the Division of Motor Vehicles did not renew her license.

Alabama Case Law

NICHOLS v. NICHOLS, 824 So.2d 797 (Ala.Civ.App. 2001)

No. 2000900.

Decided December 28, 2001.

Mary Jane Nichols (the "wife") and John C. Nichols (the "husband") were married on November 26, 1967. On May 26, 1998, the wife filed a complaint for divorce and a request for a temporary restraining order. In her complaint, the wife requested that the trial court prohibit the disposal of any of the parties' assets until further order of the trial court. On that same date, May 20, 1998, the court issued a temporary order prohibiting the parties from disposing of any assets other than their respective personal individual retirement accounts or monies in their personal checking accounts. On June 8, 1998, the husband filed his answer and a counterclaim.

Nebraska Reports

KOZIOL v. KOZIOL, 10 Neb. App. 675 (2001)

No. A-00-596.

Filed December 11, 2001.

In this dissolution action, the trial court entered a decree settling all of the various issues except the division of David D. Koziol's pension benefits from the Omaha Fire Department. The decree stated that the marital portion of the pension should be equally divided, but reserved jurisdiction to enter a supplemental order in lieu of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Later, the trial court entered a supplemental order, and David appeals from that order. David argues that the court can only divide the marital "value" of the pension, that is, his contribution to the pension while married, and that the supplemental order changed the distribution of the pension from that contained in the previous decree. We conclude that the order entered as a decree was not a final order, but that the supplemental order entered made it final. We also conclude that the court could enter a decree dividing the marital portion of the pension equally, but that the formula used in the supplemental order could give Linda L. Koziol some of the nonmarital portion of the pension. Accordingly, we modify the formula used to divide the marital portion of the pension equally and remand to incorporate our modification.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

KIMMEY v. KIMMEY, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2001)

Case No. 1-01-68.

October 31, 2001.

Appellant, David Kimmey, appeals from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allen County, Domestic Relations Division, granting him a divorce from Lynn Kimmey, Appellee, and dividing the parties' marital estate. Lynn has also filed a cross-appeal in this case. Finding one of the arguments advanced on appeal to have merit, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

Kansas Case Law

IN RE MARRIAGE OF BAHR, 29 Kan. App. 2d 846 (2001)

No. 86,790

Opinion filed: September 28, 2001.

This is the second appeal by Rex concerning the maintenance award fashioned by the trial court upon dissolution of his marriage with Ella.

Iowa Reports

IN RE VEATCH, 0-822/00-556 (Iowa App. 2001)

No. 0-822/00-556.

Filed May 23, 2001.

Maxine Veatch appeals, and Stephen Veatch cross-appeals, from various economic provisions of their dissolution decree. On review, Maxine contends the district court erred in (1) failing to equitably divide Stephen's retirement account; (2) failing to award her commissions, residuals, and trailer payments which had accrued to their business when the partnership terminated; (3) assessing a $180,000 value to the marital home; and (4) making an error in computing Stephen's $15,000 lump-sum payment award. On cross-appeal, Stephen argues the district court erred in (1) awarding him an inequitable share of the marital home's equity; and (2) failing to award him alimony. We affirm.

North Carolina Reports

COOPER v. COOPER, 143 N.C. App. 322 (2001)

No. COA00-518

Filed 1 May 2001

Paul D. Cooper ("defendant"), appeals the trial court's equitable distribution judgment awarding an equal division of marital assets between defendant and Jean Cooper ("plaintiff").

Alabama Case Law

KELLEY v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF REV., 796 So.2d 1114 (Ala.Civ.App. 2000)

No. 2990959.

Decided December 1, 2000. Certiorari Denied April 27, 2001 Alabama Supreme Court 1000520.

Margaret A. Kelley, hereinafter referred to as "the wife," and Charles Kelley, hereinafter referred to as "the husband," were divorced in 1991. They entered into an agreement, which the trial court incorporated into its divorce judgment. The judgment provided that the husband would by periodic payments pay the wife 40% of his current and future salary. The husband made these payments and deducted them as alimony payments on his state income-tax returns. However, the wife did not include these payments in her gross income for income-tax purposes.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

MANEMANN v. MANEMANN, Unpublished Decision (04-20-2001)

C.A. Case No. 2000 CA 76, T.C. Case No. 98 DR 0900.

Rendered April 20, 2001.

Rex A. Manemann appeals from a judgment of the Clark County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which dissolved his marriage to Mary E. Manemann, now known as Mary E. Heineman ("Heineman"), and divided their marital property.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Reports

ECOLONO v. DIVISION OF REIMBURSEMENTS, 137 Md. App. 639 (2001)

No. 1243, September Term, 2000

Filed: April 2, 2001

The question presented by this case is whether the State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene violated State or federal law when it utilized Social Security benefits, payable to an individual committed to a State hospital, to pay current charges for that inpatient care. We find a violation of federal law and, as a result, shall reverse the decision of the Circuit Court for Howard County.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

SCHORSCH v. SCHORSCH, Unpublished Decision (3-28-2001)

Trial No. DR9803156, Appeal No. C-000376.

March 28, 2001.

This appeal, considered on the accelerated calendar under App.R. 11.1(E) and Loc.R. 12, is not controlling authority except as provided in S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 2(G)(1).

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

JOHNSON v. JOHNSON, Unpublished Decision (2-9-2001)

Court of Appeals Nos. WD-99-039, WD-98-082, WD-99-057, Trial Court No. 96-DR-084.

Decided: February 9, 2001.

This appeal comes to us from a decree of divorce issued by the Wood County Court of Common Pleas. Because we conclude that the trial court erred in the division of certain property, we reverse in part.

Wisconsin Case Law

IN RE MARRIAGE OF SCHMITT, 2001 WI App 78, 242 Wis.2d 565

Case No. 00-0695.

Opinion Released: February 8, 2001. Opinion Filed: February 8, 2001.

Arnold Schmitt appeals a divorce judgment, contending that the trial court erred by awarding him too little maintenance for a too limited time period. We conclude that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in determining the amount or duration of maintenance. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Maryland Court of Special Appeals Reports

O'BRIEN v. O'BRIEN, 136 Md. App. 497 (2001)

No. 3017, September Term, 1999.

Filed: February 2, 2001.

The Circuit Court for Montgomery County denied a petition by Colleen Victoria O'Brien, appellant, for child support arrearages against her father, William Robert O'Brien, appellee, for support of Colleen's younger sister, and William's daughter, Fiona Katherine O'Brien. The circuit court rejected a domestic relations master's recommendation for an arrearages award in favor of Colleen and against William. On appeal, Colleen raises four questions for review, which we have combined, reordered, and rephrased: I. Did the circuit court err in ruling that Colleen lacked standing to seek arrearages against her father because she did not have legal custody or guardianship of Fiona?

Iowa Reports

IN RE FELDMAN, 0-316/99-867 (Iowa App. 1-24-2001)

No. 0-316/99-867.

Filed January 24, 2001.

Carole Feldman appeals the economic provisions of the parties' divorce decree. She claims the court erred in not considering the value of a forty-acre homestead when dividing assets. She also claims the court did not consider its division of the property of the parties in awarding alimony. Finally, she claims the district court should have awarded her attorney fees. We affirm.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

MACKEY v. MACKEY, Unpublished Decision (1-17-2001)

C.A. No. 20010.

January 17, 2001.

Appellant, Randy D. Mackey, appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Oregon Tax Court Reports

KINGSLEY v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 15 OTR 293 (2001)

TC 4424

JANUARY 5, 2001.

Plaintiff (taxpayer) appeals from the assessment of additional income taxes for 1989 and 1990. By the time of trial, there were only four remaining issues: two concerning the amount of taxpayer's income, a dependent's exemption, and bad-debt losses.

West Virginia Supreme Court Reports

SETTLE v. SETTLE, 208 W. Va. 310 (2000)

No. 27683

Filed: November 3, 2000

The Appellant, James Woodrow Settle, Jr., appeals from the October 1, 1999, order of the Circuit Court of Fayette County, wherein the lower court concluded that the Appellant could only receive credit for all sums paid by the Social Security Administration to his dependents pursuant to Farley v. Farley, 186 W. Va. 263, 412 S.E.2d 261 (1991), beginning on May 30, 1996, the date he filed his petition for modification of child support. The Appellant argues that the circuit court erred in concluding that he was entitled to credit toward his child support arrearage for the dependent's benefits paid by Social Security only from the date he filed his petition for modification. Based upon our review of the parties' briefs,[fn1] the record and all other matters submitted before this Court, we agree with the Appellant that the lower court erred in failing to give the Appellant credit for the entire amount of Social Security disability payments made to his children, dating back to his date of disability. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Arizona Case Law

MARRIAGE OF KELLY v. KELLY, 198 Ariz. 307 (2000)

Supreme Court No. CV-98-0090-PR.

Filed September 14, 2000.

1 Byron and Corinne Kelly were married in 1984 and divorced in 1997. During the marriage, both were employed by the federal government. Corinne participated in the Federal Employees Retirement System, a component of which is social security. Byron was enrolled in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), which does not include social security. In fact, Byron would lose a portion of his CSRS benefits if he ever received social security payments. See 5 U.S.C. § 8349 (1996). Thus, he characterizes a portion of his retirement as being "in lieu of" such payments.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

CAMSKY v. CAMSKY, Unpublished Decision (8-11-2000)

Case No. 99 BA 31.

Dated: August 11, 2000.

Defendant-appellant Donald Camsky appeals the decision of the Belmont County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, which incorporated an in-court agreement by appellant to apply for early retirement Social Security benefits into an order of the court. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded.

Texas Case Law

TATE v. TATE, 55 S.W.3d 1 (Tex.App.-El Paso [8th Dist.] 2000)

No. 08-99-00006-CV.

August 3, 2000.

In this appeal from a final decree of divorce, the only issue before us is whether certain assets were properly characterized as the separate property of Patsy Brashier Tate. We affirm.

Connecticut Trial Ct. Unpublished Decisions

HOFFMAN v. HOFFMAN, No. FA 98-0718756-S (Jul. 12, 2000)

No. FA 98-0718756-S

July 12, 2000

It is found that all of the allegations in plaintiff's complaint have been proven, that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and the marriage is ordered dissolved for that reason.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

SOWERS v. SOWERS, Unpublished Decision (7-5-2000)

Case No. 00CA3.

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 5, 2000.

Defendant-appellant Michael W. Sowers (hereinafter "husband") appeals the January 12, 2000 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, which granted the parties a divorce, divided marital property, and awarded attorney fees. Plaintiff-appellee is Michelle D. Sowers (hereinafter "wife").

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

BOURJAILY v. BOURJAILY, Unpublished Decision (7-3-2000)

Case No. 99 CA 120.

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: July 3, 2000.

Appellant Frederick Bourjaily appeals the decision of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, concerning the distribution of pension benefits in his divorce. Appellee is the prior spouse, Kathleen Bourjaily. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. Appellant and appellee were married on July 8, 1978. Two children were born as issue of the marriage. Appellant has been employed since 1983 with the Social Security Agency, and is a participant in the federal civil service retirement system ("CSRS"). He also serves in the United States Army Reserve, with approximately fifteen years of creditable service accrued. Appellee has had limited employment during the marriage. On September 23, 1997, appellant filed for divorce. The matter ultimately went to trial before a magistrate on October 1, 1998. Both parties filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The trial judge ruled on the objections on August 25, 1999, and a final decree of divorce was entered on September 23, 1999. The decree mandates the division of retirement benefits as follows: 7. The defendant shall be awarded one-half of the plaintiff's Civil Service pension accrued between July 8, 1978 and October 1, 1998. This shall be accomplished by means of a Court Order Acceptable for processing (COAP) which shall include COLA's and survivorship rights for the defendant.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

FULMER v. FULMER, Unpublished Decision (5-5-2000)

Case No. 98-T-0146 ACCELERATED.

May 5, 2000.

Appellant, Mark W. Fulmer, appeals the decision of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, ordering the payment of spousal support in favor of appellee, Frances Z. Fulmer.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

CARNIFAX v. CARNIFAX, Unpublished Decision (4-14-2000)

No. 97-T-0189.

April 14, 2000.

Rodney Carnifax, Administrator W.W.A. of the Estate of Lawrence Ray Carnifax, deceased, appellant and cross-appellee ("appellant"), appeals the judgment entry of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, in which it issued a final decree of divorce.

Ohio Unpublished Opinions

McCLELLAND v. McCLELLAND, Unpublished Decision (2-25-2000)

No. 97-JE-60

Dated February 25, 2000

This appeal arises from the Jefferson County Common Pleas Court's final decree of divorce incorporating Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Appellant challenges the trial court's division of property, denial of spousal support and other findings of fact. For the following reasons, the decision of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part for further action pursuant to this Court's Opinion.

Missouri Case Law

DeMAYO v. DeMAYO, 9 S.W.3d 736 (Mo.App.W.D. 2000)

No. WD 56482.

January 25, 2000.

[1] Leila and Mark DeMayo were married on August 30, 1986. They have two children together, Jessica, 12, and Lauren, 10, and Leila has children from prior marriages. On May 15, 1996, Mark filed his Petition for Dissolution of Marriage and on July 16, 1998, a two-day hearing commenced. A judgment was entered and the marriage was dissolved on September 17, 1998. Leila appeals the judgment of the trial court complaining that the evidence does not support the division of the marital estate.

Available M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST
Toll Free: 800.221.0706 Tel: 732.212.1114
Fax: 732.212.1113
info@pension-evaluators.com

Pension Evaluators® at Troyan, Inc.
P.O. Box 8722
Red Bank, New Jersey 07701

> Back to top

Visitor Security About Us Resources Contact Us
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.