Navigation Bar
< Home Page[About Us]


Why?
Subsription Access to some research documents (those we license from independent legal research companies) are restricted to subscribers. To gain access to ALL of these documents, you must subscribe. If you are already a subscriber, you may sign in before you begin your research. (Why Subscribe?)

Cases of Interest: Survivor Benefits
National Legal Research Group, Inc.

ALASKA: Williams v. Crawford, 982 P.2d 250 (Alaska 1999).
A property distribution agreement obligated the husband to name the wife as recipient of a civil service pension's survivorship benefits; it did not entitle the wife to a guaranteed annuity in an amount she would have received had she remained statutorily eligible for survivorship benefits.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ALASKA: Zito v. Zito, 969 P.2d 1144 (Alaska 1998).
Barring an express understanding to the contrary, an agreement for equitable division of retirement benefits earned during a marriage presumptively encompasses survivor benefits.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

CONNECTICUT: Askinazi v. Askinazi, 34 Conn. App. 328, 641 A.2d 413 (1994).
The trial court did not err by treating the survivorship benefit of the husband's federal pension as a potential source of future alimony rather than as property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MARYLAND: Caldwell v. Caldwell, 103 Md. App. 452, 653 A.2d 994 (1995).
A federal civil service employee's spouse may be awarded the maximum survivor annuity benefit available when the employee dies, not merely the marital portion of the benefit.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

PENNSYLVANIA: Palladino v. Palladino, 713 A.2d 676 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998).
The wife's survivor benefits under the husband's pension plan were properly classified as marital property, valued, and awarded to her in the parties' property distribution. During the parties' separation, the husband's defined benefit pension entered pay status and he began to receive monthly retirement benefits. At that time, he was ordered to elect a joint-life pension, which would insure that the wife would receive the same amount as the husband following his death. But for that election, the husband's monthly benefits would have been higher.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page


State Home Archives Bulletin Menu Chat Rooms Family Law Links Publications Menu Dictionary


About Us | Monthly Newsletter | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Statement | Contact Us | Advertising

The information contained on this page is not to be considered legal advice. A lawyer should always be consulted in regards to any legal matters. Divorce Source, Inc. is also not a referral service and does not endorse or recommend any third party individuals, companies, and/or services. Divorce Source, Inc. has made no judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating professionals. Read our Terms & Conditions.

© 1996 - 2012 Divorce Source, Inc. All Rights Reserved.