In re Morales

13 Citing cases

  1. In re Brownell

    163 N.H. 593 (N.H. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    Id. (emphasis added); see Morales and Morales, 230 Or.App. 132, 214 P.3d 81, 85 (2009); Youngbluth v. Youngbluth, 188 Vt. 53, 6 A.3d 677, 687 n. 3 (2010); Annotation, Enforcement of Claim for Alimony or Support, or for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Incurred in Connection Therewith, Against Exemptions, 52 A.L.R.5th 221, 372 (1997) (“With few exceptions, the cases hold that payments arising from service in the Armed Forces ..., though exempt as to the claims of ordinary creditors, are not exempt from a claim for alimony, support, or maintenance....”). In so concluding, courts have relied upon Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 107 S.Ct. 2029, 95 L.Ed.2d 599 (1987).

  2. Zickefoose v. Zickefoose

    724 S.E.2d 312 (W. Va. 2012)   Cited 9 times

    * * * An “overwhelming majority of courts” have held that VA disability payments may be considered as income in awarding spousal support. In re Marriage of Morales, 230 Or.App. 132, 214 P.3d 81, 85 (Or.Ct.App.2009). These courts conclude that federal law does not prohibit an award of alimony against a spouse receiving military disability pay and, once alimony is awarded, federal law will not relieve the paying spouse from paying such alimony obligations, even if most of the veteran's income consists of military disability benefits.

  3. Lewis v. Lewis

    No. 315730 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 31, 2014)

    Id. at 574-575. The following analysis from In re Marriage of Morales, 230 Or App 132, 139; 214 P3d 81 (2009), is instructive: Although Oregon courts have not expressly addressed whether the Court's holding in Mansell extends to bar a court from considering VA disability benefits received in lieu of military retirement benefits for purposes of awarding spousal support, nearly every state court that has addressed that question has concluded that Mansell affects property division, not spousal support.

  4. Barclay v. Oregon

    Civ. No. 6:15-cv-01920-MC (D. Or. Oct. 22, 2015)

    This Court notes that Oregon courts frequently consider "veterans' disability benefits in awarding spousal support, even where the recipient has waived military retirement pay to receive those benefits." In re Marriage of Morales, 230 Or. App. 132, 138 (2009) (citations omitted); see also In re Marriage of Hayes, 228 Or. App. 555, 564 (2009) (explaining that "the majority of courts have upheld the division of total retired pay (including any waived portion), on a number of different grounds") CONCLUSION

  5. Barclay v. Oregon

    Civ. No. 6:15-cv-01920-MC (D. Or. Oct. 20, 2015)

    This Court notes that Oregon courts frequently consider "veterans' disability benefits in awarding spousal support, even where the recipient has waived military retirement pay to receive those benefits." In re Marriage of Morales, 230 Or. App. 132, 138 (2009) (citations omitted); see also In re Marriage of Hayes, 228 Or. App. 555, 564 (2009) (explaining that "the majority of courts have upheld the division of total retired pay (including any waived portion), on a number of different grounds") CONCLUSION

  6. Urbaniak v. Urbaniak

    2011 S.D. 83 (S.D. 2011)   Cited 13 times

    [¶ 19.] An “overwhelming majority of courts” have held that VA disability payments may be considered as income in awarding spousal support. In re Marriage of Morales, 230 Or.App. 132, 214 P.3d 81, 85 (2009). These courts conclude that federal law does not prohibit an award of alimony against a spouse receiving military disability pay and, once alimony is awarded, federal law will not relieve the paying spouse from paying such alimony obligations, even if most of the veteran's income consists of military disability benefits.

  7. Youngbluth v. Youngbluth

    2010 Vt. 40 (Vt. 2010)   Cited 31 times
    Emphasizing that "Vermont places great emphasis on the finality of property divisions"

    We agree with the statement that "the overwhelming majority of courts [have held] that VA disability payments may be considered as income in awarding spousal support." In re Marriage of Morales, 214 P.3d 81, 85 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (emphasis added). In fact, this Court has stated that although federal law "would preclude an assignment or apportionment of plaintiff's veteran disability benefits, it does not preclude consideration of disability benefits by a trial court as a source of income upon which an award of alimony may be based."

  8. Goldman v. Goldman

    197 So. 3d 487 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015)   Cited 7 times
    Observing that the Mansell Court was not asked to determine whether disability benefits were properly considered as income in child support calculations

    See Steiner v. Steiner, 788 So.2d 771, 778 (Miss.2001) ; Clauson v. Clauson, 831 P.2d 1257, 1263 (Alaska 1992) ; Murphy v. Murphy, 302 Ark. 157, 159, 787 S.W.2d 684, 685 (1990) ; and In re Marriage of Morales, 230 Or.App. 132, 138, 214 P.3d 81, 85 (2009) (“As we recently observed, ‘[t]he “federal question” in ... Mansell was a narrow one: Whether federal law preempts the application of state community property laws to military [retirement] pay.’ ” (quoting In re Marriage of Hayes and Hayes, 228 Or.App. 555, 565, 208 P.3d 1046, 1052 (2009) )).Rule 32(B), Ala. R. Jud. Admin., defines income for purposes of calculating child support as follows:

  9. Goldman v. Goldman

    2140488 (Ala. Civ. App. Sep. 11, 2015)

    See Steiner v. Steiner, 788 So. 2d 771, 778 (Miss. 2001); Clauson v. Clauson, 831 P.2d 1257, 1263 (Alaska 1992); Murphy v. Murphy, 302 Ark. 157, 159, 787 S.W.2d 684, 685 (1990); and In re Marriage of Morales, 230 Orr. App. 132, 138, 214 P.3d 81, 85 (2009)("As we recently observed, '[t]he "federal question" in ... Mansell was a narrow one: Whether federal law preempts the application of state community property laws to military [retirement] pay.'" (quoting In re Marriage of Hayes and Hayes, 228 Or. App. 555, 565, 208 P.3d 1046, 1052 (2009))).

  10. Nelms v. Nelms

    99 So. 3d 1228 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012)   Cited 8 times
    In Nelms v. Nelms, 99 So.3d 1228, 1230 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012), this court considered whether a veteran's disability benefits that are not paid in lieu of military-retirement benefits and, consequently, are not subject to 10 U.S.C. § 1408, may be awarded as alimony.

    See, e.g., In re Marriage of Morales, 230 Or.App. 132, 138–39, 214 P.3d 81, 85 (2009) (holding that VA disability payments may be considered as income in awarding spousal support), and the cases cited therein: Murphy v. Murphy, 302 Ark. 157, 159, 787 S.W.2d 684, 685 (1990) (stating that nothing in federal law relieved former husband, whose income consisted of VA disability payments, from paying spousal support); Riley v. Riley, 82 Md.App. 400, 410, 571 A.2d 1261, 1266 (1990) (VA disability benefits may be considered as resource for purposes of setting alimony award); Steiner v. Steiner, 788 So.2d 771, 778 (Miss.2001) (same); Holmes v. Holmes, 7 Va.App. 472, 485, 375 S.E.2d 387, 395 (1988) (same); and Weberg v. Weberg, 158 Wis.2d 540, 544–45, 463 N.W.2d 382, 384 (Ct.App.1990) (same); see also Clauson v. Clauson, 831 P.2d 1257, 1263 n. 9 (Alaska 1992) (stating in dicta that a “state court is clearly free to consider post-divorce disability income and order a disabled veteran to pay spousal support even where disability benefits will be used to make such payments”); and D