Nell B. Newell - Page 11




                                       - 10 -                                         
          Factors which indicate that the payments are in the nature of a             
          property settlement rather than support are:  (1) That the                  
          parties in their agreement (or the court in its decree) intended            
          the payments to effect a division of their assets, (2) that the             
          recipient surrendered valuable property rights in exchange for              
          the payments, (3) that the payments are fixed in amount and not             
          subject to contingencies, such as the death or remarriage of the            
          recipient, (4) that the payments are secured, (5) that the amount           
          of the payments plus the other property awarded to the recipient            
          equals approximately one-half of the property accumulated by the            
          parties during marriage, (6) that the need of the recipient was             
          not taken into consideration in determining the amount of the               
          payments, and (7) that a separate provision for support was                 
          provided elsewhere in the decree or agreement.  Beard v.                    
          Commissioner, supra at 1284-1285.                                           
               In the case at hand, the State court stated specifically in            
          the divorce decree that the payments at issue were to be made to            
          petitioner for her interest in the marital property.                        
          Furthermore, there was a separate provision for support distinct            
          from the property settlement provisions.  The property settlement           
          payments are fixed in amount and the only contingencies applied             
          to the payments are their termination upon the death of                     
          petitioner or Mr. Newell.  Finally, there is no indication that             
          petitioner’s needs were taken into account in the initial award             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011