|
|
|
Cases of Interest: Social Security Benefits
© National Legal Research Group, Inc.
ARKANSAS: Gentry v. Gentry, ___ Ark. ___, 938 S.W.2d 231 (1997).
A spouse's agreement to divide future Social Security benefits cannot be enforced because federal law prohibits the transfer or assignment of such benefits.
Read More About This CaseFLORIDA: Johnson v. Johnson, 726 So. 2d 393 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999).
The husband's Social Security replacement plan was a marital asset with no offset for the wife's future Social Security benefits. The husband in this case was a police officer, while the wife worked as a licensed practical nurse.
Read More About This CaseKANSAS: In re Marriage of Brane, ___ Kan. App. 2d ___, 908 P.2d 625 (1995).
The antiassignment statute of the Social Security Act does not prohibit the trial court from considering Social Security income when dividing the marital estate in a divorce action.
Read More About This CaseMISSOURI: Knapp v. Knapp, 874 S.W.2d 520 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
Property division was not inequitable, even though the wife's entire pension was set aside as her nonmarital property, given that she did not acquire Social Security benefits through her employment as a teacher while the husband did acquire Social Security benefits through his employment.
Read More About This CaseNEVADA: Wolff v. Wolff, ___ Nev. ___, 929 P.2d 916 (1996).
Social Security benefits cannot be divided or given any consideration when dividing property upon divorce.
Read More About This CaseNEVADA: Boulter v. Boulter, ___ Nev. ___, 930 P.2d 112 (1997).
An agreement to share future Social Security benefits with a spouse is invalid and unenforceable.
Read More About This CaseNEW JERSEY: White v. White, 284 N.J. Super. 300, 664 A.2d 1297 (Ch. Div. 1995).
The husband, a federal employee who had not participated in Social Security, should receive an offset for the wife's Social Security when she begins receiving those benefits.
Read More About This CaseNORTH DAKOTA: Kluck v. Kluck, 561 N.W.2d 263 (N.D. 1997).
Social Security benefits paid to the wife could not be classified as marital property in view of the Social Security Act's antialienation provision.
Read More About This CaseOHIO: Walker v. Walker, 112 Ohio App. 3d 90, 677 N.E.2d 1252 (1996).
Hypothetical Social Security credits were properly deducted from the value of the husband's postal service pension, where equivalent sums had been deducted from his earnings and from his employer and credited to his pension plan in lieu of Social Security contributions.
Read More About This CaseOHIO: Smith v. Smith, 91 Ohio App. 3d 248, 632 N.E.2d 555 (1993) (published 1994).
Social Security is not a marital asset but must be considered when equitably allocating pension benefits.
Read More About This CaseOHIO: Coats v. Coats, 63 Ohio Misc. 2d 299, 626 N.E.2d 707 (C.P. 1993).
A portion of spouse's civil service pension should not be exempted from the marital estate to the extent that it is in lieu of Social Security benefits, but an offset for the value of the other spouse's Social Security benefits may be equitable in some cases.
Read More About This CasePENNSYLVANIA: McClain v. McClain, ___ Pa. Super. ___, 693 A.2d 1355 (1997).
Hypothetical Social Security contributions should not be deducted from the value of the husband's postal service pension where the wife had no appreciable Social Security benefits of her own.
Read More About This CaseRHODE ISLAND: Schaffner v. Schaffner, 713 A.2d 1245 (R.I. 1998).
The husband's federal civil service pension should be valued without deducting the hypothetical amount of Social Security benefits he would receive if he had participated in the Social Security system.
Read More About This CaseWASHINGTON: In re Marriage of Zahm, ___ Wash. 2d ___, 978 P.2d 498 (1999).
A spouse's Social Security benefits may not be divided in divorce proceedings but may be considered as part of the spouses' economic circumstances for the purpose of dividing other assets.
Read More About This CaseWASHINGTON: In re Marriage of Zahm, ___ Wash. App. ___, 955 P.2d 412 (1998).
A spouse's Social Security benefits are the separate property of that spouse, but at least when such benefits are currently being received they may be considered as a factor for the purpose of dividing property or awarding maintenance.
Read More About This CaseGo to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Store Categories State Guidebooks Find Professionals Support Calculations |
Divorce Strategy:
| The Research Center: ( Cases of Interest by Category ) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Related Information...
| |||||
 How to Hire The Right Divorce Lawyer - You must have the right lawyer to have a successful divorce! provides a road map for finding an effective lawyer and then helps you to monitor his or her performance and fees. |
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!