JURISDICTION & GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE:
Nevada only requires that one of the spouses live in the state for at least six weeks immediately before filing for a Nevada divorce.
Nevada is also a “no fault” divorce state. This means that the Court need not consider wrongdoing of either spouse when granting the divorce.

FILING FOR DIVORCE:
First, the petitioning spouse must file with the Family Court a summons and a complaint for divorce. Then, this complaint is then served on the responding spouse.
The responding spouse has 20 days to reply. The responding spouse can simply file an “answer” or may file an “answer and counterclaim” requesting the Court grant whatever property, support, custody, or visitation arrangement so desired. If he/she fails to respond to the complaint, then the Court will issue a “default” and give the filing spouse everything he/she requested in the complaint.

DIVIDING ASSETS AND LIABILITIES:
In order to determine what assets and liabilities are involved in the divorce case, the Court requires each spouse to submit the Financial Disclosure Form or “FDF.” This form can be found on the Family Court’s website at http://www.clarkcountycourts.us/shc/Supporting%20Documents/self_help_supportingdocs.html
The Financial Disclosure Form requires each spouse list all of their income, expenses, assets and debts. The Form must be filed with the Court and served on the opposing side within 45 days of the service of the summons and complaint.
Nevada is a “community property” state. This means that all property and debts acquired during a marriage are divided equally. Even if the property or debt acquired during the marriage only has one spouse’s name attached to it, the Court will still split that property or debt equally. Unless the spouses agree to divide the marital property differently, the Court will split the property and debts 50/50 between the spouses. However, any property or debts acquired by an individual before the marriage belongs to that individual alone.
The situation often occurs when couples live together prior to marriage that they acquire property or debts together proper to the marriage. These properties and debts will not be considered community property; however, it can become difficult to determine which spouse acquired the property. The Court will consider such factors as (1) which spouse’s income was used to acquire the property or (2) who’s name is associated with the property or debt.

SPOUSAL SUPPORT:
The Court may award spousal support to either spouse upon request after considering certain factors. A spouse seeking to obtain alimony must specifically request it in the complaint or answer/counterclaim. The Court will not award permanent spousal support. The general guideline is that, if the Court determine that spousal support is necessary, the Court will limit the duration of spousal support payments to half the duration of the marriage. For example, if you have been married for ten years, the Court may deny your request for spousal support outright, grant you spousal support for up to five years, but the Court will generally not award more than five years of support.
In determining the need, duration and amount of maintenance, the Court will consider:
1. Whether the requesting spouse worked during the marriage, stayed home with children, or was unable to work due to disability during the marriage;
2. The financial condition of each spouse after the divorce, i.e., whether the paying spouse earns more than the requesting spouse.
3. Whether a spouse needs support for the purpose of being trained or receiving an education in order to get a job or career.


CHILD CUSTODY & SUPPORT:
In any divorce case involving minor children, the Court will determine which parent will receive custody of the children. In figuring out who will have custody of the children, the Court will consider:
1. The wishes of the child if the child is old enough and capable of making an intelligent choice;
2. Whether either parent or any other person seeking custody has engaged in any act of domestic violence against the child, the parent, or anyone else;
3. Which parent provided for the child’s daily living needs during the marriage.

The Court will likely refer the parents to the “Family Mediation Program” located in the courthouse. A neutral mediator will meet with the parents to try to reach a Parenting Agreement that will be presented to the Court. The Court prefers to have the parents voluntarily make the custody and visitation decisions.

If the parties cannot agree to a formal Parenting Agreement, the Court will decide. The Court’s ultimate decision regarding child custody will come down to what is in the best interests of the child.
Both parents have a duty to provide financial support for their minor children. Child support is based on the Nevada Child Support Guidelines.
The Court may deviate from the Guidelines by considering the following factors:
1. The cost of health insurance
2. The cost of child care
3. Any special educational needs of the child
4. The age of the child
5. The legal responsibility of the parents for the support of others, such as elderly parents or other minor children who are not the product of the marriage in question
6. The amount of time the child spends with each parent. However, the Court generally will not reduce child support payments simply because a parent requests additional time with the child.
Once all of the issues regarding property, debts, spousal support, child support, custody and visitation are resolved, the Court will issue a final Decree of Divorce. Once the Decree of Divorce is signed by the Judge and filed with the Court, the divorce is finalized. The Court will keep the case open to resolve future issues regarding the children, but if there are no further disputes, the matter will be closed.

Yvette R. Freedman, Esq., is now the family law attorney here at John Peter Lee, Ltd. If you need assistance with your divorce; adoption; prenuptial agreement; custody, visitation, or child support dispute; or any other related issue, please call Ms. Freedman's assistant, Tim, at (702) 382-4044, and we will be happy to set up an appointment for you to meet with Ms. Freedman.

A new law passed by Congress and signed by President Obama provides protections for tenants whose landlords lose their home to foreclosure. The law is called the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009. Under the law, tenants now have the right to stay in their homes after foreclosure for 90 days or through the entire term of their lease. This federal law does not apply to tenants who are the child, spouse or parent of the landlord or where the rent is substantially less than fair market value.

This new federal law preempts Nevada law which previously allowed a tenant to be evicted with as little as 3 days notice.

If you are a tenant or landlord and would like to discuss your concerns, please call our firm at (702) 382-4044 to set up an appointment to meet with Yvette R. Freedman, Esq.

We wish to note that John C. Courtney, Esq., will have been with our firm for a year as of August 22, 2009, and we thank him for all his hard work over the past year.

On June 1, 2009, the Nevada Assembly voted 28 to 14 to override Governor Jim Gibbons’ veto of the bill establishing a domestic partnership law in Nevada. The vote in the assembly, combined with the State Senate’s 14 to 7 override of Governor Gibbons’ veto, means the bill becomes effective October 1, 2009.

Under Senate Bill 283, the bill to grant same-sex couples the same rights as married couples, which resembles California’s domestic partnership law, and which will take effect on October 1, 2009, essentially provides the exact rights, responsibilities, obligations, entitlements, and benefits of a marriage without calling the relationship a marriage. Instead, it is called a “domestic partnership”.

The Domestic Partnership Responsibilities Act 2009 will provide rights for domestic partners, whether of the same sex or opposite sex, upon a couple signing the registry at the Secretary of State’s office, and then paying a fee for a domestic partnership contract. Some examples of rights that are included will be the right to access certain information including the right to make and enforce healthcare decisions, visitation in hospitals, and anatomical donations. The partner may have inheritance rights and rights to administer the estate of a deceased partner when the domestic partner dies without a will. Other legal rights and responsibilities will apply to a domestic partner such as the rights to pursue a wrongful death action, the rights to sue on behalf of damages to the domestic partnership community, and the right to order an autopsy, among others. The law certainly treats domestic partners as if they were in a marriage, applying dissolution (divorce) laws and laws regarding property transfers, benefits, rights to wages when a domestic partner is injured and to unpaid wages upon the death of a domestic partner. A domestic partner is also entitled to the rights of unemployment and disability insurance benefits, workers compensation coverage, and insurance rights, including the rights under group policies, policy rights after the death of a domestic partner, conversion rights and continuing coverage rights. Employers of domestic partners are not required to offer healthcare or other benefits to domestic partner couples, but may do so if they so desire. Enclosed with this article is a link to a television news story in which Trevor J. Hatfield, Esq., of John Peter Lee, Ltd., was asked to provide commentary.

Same-sex marriages were banned in Nevada in 2002 by the passing of Question 2 proposed in a referendum to the voters, and providing an Amendment to the Constitution of Nevada. The Amendment passed with almost 67% of vote. In 2009, a billed sponsored by State Senator David Parks was passed, but vetoed by the Governor, as he had promised. While in Nevada, there is a Constitutional Amendment that specifies that a marriage be between only a man and a woman, by the passage of Senate Bill 283, same-sex couples now enjoy essentially the same rights as married couples. In a poll conducted by the Las Vegas Review Journal, 38% polled favor it, while 50% oppose it, and 12% are undecided. Support tends to fall upon political party affiliation with self-identified Democrats supporting the domestic partner legislation 46% to 36%. Similarly, Independents showed 47% support and 42% opposition, and Republicans expressing much stronger opposition, 71% comparatively to only 23% of Republicans supporting the bill.

If you would like to meet with Mr. Hatfield to discuss this or any other family law-related issues, please contact his assistant, Tim, at (702) 382-4044 to set up an appointment.

On August 28, 2009, Paul C. Ray, Esq., and Yvette R. Freedman, Esq., will be speaking at a seminar in Las Vegas, NV. The seminar is entitled "Judgment Enforcement in Nevada" and will cover topics such as finding debtor assets, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and obtaining an enforceable judgment. As some of the judgment enforcement laws have changed as a result of the most recent Nevada legislative session, Mr. Ray and Ms. Freedman will be addressing those changes in their presentations.

The seminar is being held at the Golden Nugget and will run from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. To register, you can visit the Lorman Education Services' Web site at www.lorman.com and register with the seminar ID (384108), or you can call (866) 352-9539.

If you have any additional questions about the seminar's contents, or if you have a judgment enforcement issue you would like to discuss with an attorney, please contact Mr. Ray or Ms. Freedman at (702) 382-4044 or info@johnpeterlee.com.

With the passage of a new law, AB 149, homeowners now have the right to seek mediation of a mortgage loan once a Notice of Default is recorded. The new law only affects owner-occupied housing and will apply only to foreclosures where the Notice of Default is recorded after July 1, 2009.

Mediation is not a formal court process. In a mediation, the homeowner and the lender sit down with a trained mediator to try to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.

Homeowners will be required to prepare financial statements, including stating exactly what they can afford to pay on a mortgage, and lenders must release appraisals showing the current worth of the home on which they seek to foreclose together with estimates of what the home would sell for in a short sale. With the required information from the lender and the homeowner, the mediator can determine if the two sides can agree to a loan modification that would keep the homeowner in the property. Lenders, however, are not required to agree to a loan modification.

Mediation at which homeowners and lenders will meet with a mediator and try to work out solutions are expected to begin in August 2009. If you have questions regarding mediation, loan modification, or foreclosure, contact John Peter Lee, Ltd., at (702) 382-4044 to schedule an appointment to meet with one of our attorneys.

Heers Family and County Settle Airspace Takings Claims After 15 Years of Litigation for $15 Million

This week, the owners of the old Vacation Village Hotel and Casino finally reached a settlement agreement with Clark County for the taking of their airspace. CEH Properties, Ltd., owned by the Heers Family in Las Vegas, agreed with the County to accept a final payment reaching a total settlement of more than $15 million.

The Heers Family filed their claim in 1993 for a taking of their airspace. The County denied liability until the federal district court ruled that the Heers were entitled to just compensation for the taking of their property in 2005. The County appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which upheld the Nevada district court in 2007. The County unsuccessfully sought review by the Supreme Court of the United States, which sought briefing by the Solicitor General as a friend of the court for the Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration. The High Court followed the Solicitor General’s recommendation and denied the County review of the case.

"The Heers Family has waited a long time to receive their just compensation," says their attorney Paul C. Ray, Esq., of the law firm of John Peter Lee, Ltd. "In this case, we think the court’s award of CEH’s attorney’s fees helped the County to see that settling was better than litigating. Unfortunately, the Heers lost their property because they could not refinance in the 1990's because its value fell after the taking of the runway expansion, but they are glad to be ending the litigation"

After the second trial, Federal District Judge Robert Clive Jones awarded CEH just compensation and attorney’s fees totaling more than $15 million. Judge Jones’ first award was $10 million before the County appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

***

If you would like more information about this topic, or to schedule an interview with Paul C. Ray, please call Diane Powell at 382-4044 or email Diane at info@johnpeterlee.com.

Filing for bankruptcy is a difficult, stressful process, but it is helpful to have all your information ready when you come in to meet with an attorney. Your attorney must provide all the information below to the court in order for the court to make the best determination to address your financial issues. If you have this information ready ahead of time, it makes things much easier for your attorney and, in return, for you. (Please note that if you and your spouse will be filing a joint petition, the debts incurred by your spouse must be listed, too.)

Yvette R. Freedman, Esq., is the attorney at John Peter Lee, Ltd., who handles our bankruptcy matters, and she would be happy to meet with you to advise you as to how to proceed. Please call (702) 382-4044 to speak with Sandra, Ms. Freedman’s assistant, who will set up an appointment for you to meet with Ms. Freedman at a time that is most convenient for you.

To help you get prepared for your meeting, below is the information we seek to begin the bankruptcy filing process:

( Read more... )

Paralegal Ashleigh Bautista and Legal Administrator Lori Kivatisky recently graduated from the University of Arizona's paralegal certificate program. Mrs. Kivatisky will also be starting her advanced paralegal training through the University of Arizona in 2009. Congratulations to both women are certainly warranted, as the programs are very rigorous and challenging.