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Ohio Unpublished Opinions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 HIGHLANDER v. RUDDUCK, Unpublished Opinion (2004)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Ohio Unpublished Opinions
HARSHBARGER v. HARSHBARGER, Unpublished Decision (7-23-2004)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 & QDROS Of Troyan, Inc Associates Group​
P.O. Box 8722
Red Bank, New Jersey 07701
> Back to top