|
|
|
Cases of Interest: Federal Preemption
© 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 CaseCALIFORNIA: In re Marriage of Shelstead, ___ Cal. App. 4th ___, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 365 (1998).
A domestic relations order in a dissolution action is not qualified if it provides the nonemployee spouse with the right to name a successor in interest to receive his or her share of undistributed pension benefits upon his or her death because a successor in interest is not an "alternate payee" within the meaning of ERISA.
Read More About This CaseFLORIDA: Kelson v. Kelson, 675 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1996).
Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI) benefits paid to a service member upon voluntary separation from the armed forces qualify as military retirement pay under a property settlement agreement that provides for division of military retirement pay, and federal law does not preclude a state court from enforcing a property settlement that is found to encompass VSI benefits.
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 MEXICO: Hennessy v. Duryea, ___ N.M. ___, 955 P.2d 683 (Ct. App. 1998).
Federal law precluded the wife from being awarded a share of the husband's military retirement benefits where the parties' 1973 divorce decree did not divide the benefits or reserve jurisdiction to do so.
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 CaseOKLAHOMA: Gray v. Gray, 922 P.2d 615 (Okla. 1996).
Although veterans' disability benefits are the separate property of the veteran, property purchased with those funds during marriage is jointly acquired property divisible upon divorce.
Read More About This CaseOKLAHOMA: Pavatt v. Pavatt, 920 P.2d 1074 (Okla. Ct. App. 1996).
The husband's Special Separation Benefit (SSB) was a retirement plan asset that must be divided with the wife pursuant to the parties' divorce decree.
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
| 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. |