Murray v. Murray

Nevada Supreme Court

Murray v. Murray

DecidedNovember 17, 2015

Docket64935

StatusUnpublished

This text of Murray v. Murray (Murray v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Murray v. Murray, (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

especially considering that David used at least some community property to pay his own attorney's $20,000 retainer—making the award here reasonable under NRS 125.150(1)(a)(3). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in accelerating Sharon's entitlement to David's retirement benefits. This court has repeatedly held that a spouse is entitled to the other spouse's retirement benefits as soon as the latter spouse is eligible to retire. See Sertic v. Sertic, 111 Nev. 1192, 1194, 901 P.2d 148, 149 (1995) ("If [the wife] does not elect to retire when she first becomes eligible, she shall be obligated to pay to [the husband] what he would have received if she had retired."); Gemma v. Gemma, 105 Nev. 458, 464, 778 P.2d 429, 432 (1989) ("The district court here properly ordered that [the wife] may elect to receive pension benefits at the time they become due and payable, this being defined in the divorce decree as the time when [the husband] is first eligible to retire."). Accordingly, we' ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

1 We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Alvin R. Kacin, District Judge Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge Kenneth J. McKenna Law Offices of Lisa K. Mendez Elko County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

especially considering that David used at least some community property to pay his own attorney's $20,000 retainer—making the award here reasonable under NRS 125.150(1)(a)(3). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not err in accelerating Sharon's entitlement to David's retirement benefits. This court has repeatedly held that a spouse is entitled to the other spouse's retirement benefits as soon as the latter spouse is eligible to retire. See Sertic v. Sertic, 111 Nev. 1192, 1194, 901 P.2d 148, 149 (1995) ("If [the wife] does not elect to retire when she first becomes eligible, she shall be obligated to pay to [the husband] what he would have received if she had retired."); Gemma v. Gemma, 105 Nev. 458, 464, 778 P.2d 429, 432 (1989) ("The district court here properly ordered that [the wife] may elect to receive pension benefits at the time they become due and payable, this being defined in the divorce decree as the time when [the husband] is first eligible to retire."). Accordingly, we' ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

1 We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Alvin R. Kacin, District Judge Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge Kenneth J. McKenna Law Offices of Lisa K. Mendez Elko County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Murray v. Murray, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-murray-nev-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack