Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So. 2d 118.

92 citing documents.

Melodye Patterson Nee Tanner v. Gary Edward Patterson La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
Noel W. Yates v. Lisa J. Yates La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
mes & Co., v. Montgomery, (matured defined contribution plandetermined based on the contributions the employee made during the community), (defined benefit plandivided the amount of time in the plan during the community by the total number of work years to determine a percentage earned during the community), (Sims is not exclusive means of apportioning 9 We note that this account remained a community account until the partition judgment was rendered as will be discussed more fully in assignmen
Howard C. Schoeffler v. Nancy N. Schoeffler La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
Elizabeth Webb v. Daniel Andrew Webb 263 So. 3d 321 La. 2018
Lockwood v. Lockwood 256 So. 3d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
9:2801 A(4)(a); Hare v. Hodgins , , 121 (La.
Fleece v. Fleece 185 So. 3d 90 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
Dean Born v. City of Slidell 180 So. 3d 1227 La. 2015
Andrepont v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal Dish, ( (partition of community property); Robert C.S.
James E. Stewart, Sr. v. Dianne Denley Stewart La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
9 10 (La.App 5 Cir. 1991), writ denied, 11 (La.
Stewart v. Stewart 166 So. 3d 448 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Delaney v. McCoy 152 So. 3d 1049 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
Now, plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant which found that, plaintiff was entitled to retirement benefits based upon the rank of driver which defendant, who retired as deputy chief, held with the Shreveport Fire Department at the termination of the community regime in 1979.
Delaney v. McCoy 93 So. 3d 845 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
Sims v. Sims, supra, provided the following formula for dividing a pro rata community property interest in a former spouse’s retirement benefits: Portion of pension attributable to creditable service during the existence of community _X ½ X annuity (or lump sum payment) (La.
Schultz v. White 50 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Legaux-Barrow v. Barrow 8 So. 3d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
LA. STATE EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. McWilliams 996 So. 2d 1036 La. 2008
Wahlborg v. Wahlborg 973 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
App. 5th Cir. 1990), reversed in part on other grounds, (La.
Criticized Bruno v. Bruno 971 So. 2d 350 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
provides authority to bring the instant action, defeat the exception of res judicata, and overturn a judgment rendered thirteen years ago.
David James Jett, II v. Sharolette Brown Jett La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
as the “Sims formula.” 2 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Sharolette’s sole assignment of error is set forth as follows: The Trial Court erred in deviating from the Sims formula, [] (La.
Jett v. Jett 957 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Sharolette's sole assignment of error is set forth as follows: The Trial Court erred in deviating from the Sims formula, [] (La.1991) in that, as a matter of law, the employee spouse did not meet his burden of proving the promotions and increase in income post-divorce were solely attributed to his meritorious efforts and achievements.
Welker v. Welker 954 So. 2d 225 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
CARAWAY, J. This dispute involves the division between former spouses of the annuity benefits under a
Chad Anthony Mire v. Lacinda Michelle Stewart Mire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
5 Cir. 1990), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds
Mire v. Mire 962 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
App. 5 Cir.1990), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, (La.
Allen v. Allen 941 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
James argued that Margaret’s whereby she was entitled to only $80.14 per month.
Allen v. Allen 925 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
as its value had increased owing to his post-community efforts.
Dean F. Leblanc v. Jenny A. Hulin Leblanc La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 1990), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, (citations omitted), in which the court denied an exception of prescription, noting that “the law is clear that where there is no transfer of rights in the partition document, an asset remains owned in indivision by the parties.
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 915 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
5 Cir.1990), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, (citations omitted), in which the court denied an exception of prescription, noting that "the law is clear that where there is no transfer of rights in the partition document, an asset remains owned in indivision by the parties.
Lanza v. Lanza 898 So. 2d 280 La. 2005
Paige B. Sullivan v. Charles P. Sullivan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Sullivan v. Sullivan 892 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Fredy Rivera-Santos v. Ada Elba Melendez Rivera-Santos La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment awarding Ms. Rivera-Santos a portion of Mr. Rivera-Santos’ retirement benefits, but amend the judgment to partition the said benefits according to the supreme court’s
Rivera-Santos v. Rivera-Santos 862 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment awarding Ms. Rivera-Santos a portion of Mr. Rivera-Santos' retirement benefits
Day v. Day 858 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
5th Cir.1990), reversed in part on other grounds, Faucheaux v. Faucheaux, 97-1369 (La.App.
Sparcello v. Heno 848 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Appellant argues she is entitled to the increased value of these funds which accrued after the termination of the community, and she contends that the trial court erred in ignoring the hold *613 .
Goetzman v. Goetzman 835 So. 2d 731 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
He asserts that this court should apply by analogy the supreme court’s to adjust the Sims formula “to more accurately reflect the community and separate components of the pension benefit.” The Hare court recognized that in some cases the Sims formula may not always accurately reflect the relative community and separate components of a particular pension plan, such as when ther
Donaldson v. Donaldson 831 So. 2d 416 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
Carter v. Carter 813 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Gautney v. Gautney 814 So. 2d 717 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
Lupberger v. Lupberger 805 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Bullock v. Owens 796 So. 2d 170 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Thomson v. Thomson 778 So. 2d 736 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Robinson v. Robinson 778 So. 2d 1105 La. 2001
5 Cir.1990), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, (La.
Hansel v. Holyfield 779 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
James & Co., Inc. v. Montgomery, supra
Sanders v. Sanders 780 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
art. 2338; Killgore v. Killgore, 25,673 (La.App.2d Cir.3/30/94), .
Fricks v. Fricks 771 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Schexnayder v. Holbert, 98-12 (La.5/29/98)
Couvillion v. Couvillion 769 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
In Re Succession of Moss 769 So. 2d 614 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Hannan v. Hannan 761 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
the pension rights issue involved a matured pension.
Thurston v. Thurston 740 So. 2d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
for the premise that in a partition proceeding, a former spouse might pursue an interest in a community-owned retirement on a basis other than that calculated by the Sims formula.
Gay v. Gay 741 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
9:2801(4)(c); Kambur v. Kambur, 94-775 (La.App.
Bordes v. Bordes 730 So. 2d 443 La. 1999
Blanchard v. Blanchard 731 So. 2d 175 La. 1999
Resolution of this issue necessarily turns on whether it is proper in this case to divide the pension using the "present cash value" method, or to defer defendant's benefit distribution until Ms. Blanchard retires under the "fixed percentage"