Perez v. Perez
Decision Date | 22 March 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 26050.,26050. |
Parties | David K. PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leslie T. PEREZ, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
John V. Kendrick for Plaintiff-Appellant.
William H. Brady, Honolulu, for Defendant-Appellee.
This is an appeal by Plaintiff-Appellant David K. Perez (David) from a December 8, 2004 Amended Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Leslie T. Perez's Motion and Affidavit for Post-Decree Relief Filed on June 6, 2003 (December 8, 2004 Amended Order) entered in the Family Court of the First Circuit. We affirm.
On September 11, 1968, David entered the United States Armed Forces. David and Defendant-Appellee Leslie T. Perez (Leslie) were married on December 6, 1972. They have two adult non-dependent children.
David retired from military service on March 1, 1990. On July 2, 1996, David filed a complaint for divorce. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, as indicated by their signatures approving its form and content, the August 4, 1997 Decree Granting Absolute Divorce (Divorce Decree) entered by Judge Lillian Ramirez-Uy states, in relevant part, as follows:
6) Retirement benefits. [Leslie] is awarded a FORTY PERCENT (40%) portion of each payment of disposable retired or retainer pay. The portion is "x" in the following formula, in which "M" is the total number of years of the marriage which were also years credited to [David] for retirement purposes, "Y" is the total number of years credited to [David] for retirement purposes, and in which "DRRP" equals the payment of disposable retired or retainer pay to be divided.
X = {.5} {M/Y} {DRRP} 40% = (.5) (17.4) (DRRP) ______ (21.6)
Disposable retired or retainer pay for these purposes shall be the gross retired or retainer pay to which [David] is entitled less only amounts which:
The United States Government shall directly pay [Leslie] her portion of [David's] disposable retired or retainer pay.
On June 6, 2003, Leslie filed a Motion and Affidavit for Post-Decree Relief (June 6, 2003 Motion), (1) seeking relief from the financial harm caused her by the fact that "[David] has failed to pay [Leslie] the reduction in her retirement pay caused by him[,]" and (2) asking for an amendment of the language of the Divorce Decree "so that the Defense Finance Accounting Service will accept the Divorce Decree and put [Leslie] back on as the Survivor of [David's] benefits[.]" In an accompanying affidavit, Leslie stated, in relevant part, the following:
On August 8, 2003, after a hearing on July 16, 2003, Judge Bode A. Uale entered an "Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Leslie T. Perez's Motion and Affidavit for Post-Decree Relief Filed on June 6, 2003".
On August 27, 2003, David filed a notice of appeal. On September 25, 2003, Judge Uale entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FsOF and CsOL) that state, in relevant part, as follows:
On November 5, 2004, this court entered an Order of Temporary Remand to Family Court. On December 8, 2004, Judge Uale entered the December 8, 2004 Amended Order, stating, in relevant part, as follows:
This appeal was assigned to this court on May 19, 2004.
David challenges the part of the December 8, 2004 Amended Order that states, in relevant part, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cassinelli v. Cassinelli (In re Cassinelli)
...of Lodeski (Colo.Ct.App. 2004) 107 P.3d 1097, 1101 ; Blann v. Blann (Fla. App. 2007) 971 So.2d 135, 137 ; Perez v. Perez (2005) 107 Haw. 85, 90–91, 110 P.3d 409, 414–415 ; McHugh v. McHugh (1993) 124 Idaho 543, 545, 861 P.2d 113, 115 ; In re Marriage of Neilsen (2003) 341 Ill.App.3d 863, 86......
-
Merrill v. Merrill
...recipient becomes disabled during the recipient's employment and, to the extent of his disability, cannot work.” Perez v. Perez, 107 Hawai‘i 85, 110 P.3d 409, 413 (App.2005). Federal law precludes division of those benefits as community property. See10 U.S.C. § 1408(a)(4)(C); Mansell v. Man......
-
Jaylo v. Jaylo, s. 27851
...that relief is justified from that portion of the Court's ruling in light of the ICA's recent decision” in Perez v. Perez, 107 Hawai‘i 85, 110 P.3d 409 (App.2005). Relying on HRS §§ 577–7(a) 10 and 580–47(a) 11 as her authority, Wife also [124 Hawai'i 494 , 248 P.3d 1225] sought child suppo......
-
Jacoby v. Jacoby
...income that is earned and received post-divorce, disability pay is not property divisible in a divorce case. Perez v. Perez, 107 Hawai‘i 85, 89, 110 P.3d 409, 413 (App.2005) ; see also Jones v. Jones, 7 Haw.App. 496, 499, 780 P.2d 581, 584 (1989). Although both Perez and Jones involved mili......
-
§ 12.03 Military Longevity and Disability Retirement
...re Marriage of Lodeski, 107 P.3d 1097 (Col. App. 2004). Florida: Abernathy v. Fishkin, 699 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1997). Hawaii: Perez v. Perez, 107 Haw. 85, 110 P.3d 409 (2005); Bienvenue v. Bienvenue, 102 Haw. 59, 72 P.3d 531 (2003). Indiana: Bandini v. Bandini, 36 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1587 (Ind. ......