← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 10593929

Date unknown · US

Extracted case name
pending
Extracted reporter citation
pending
Docket / number
2014-000864 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
QDRO relevance 5/5Retirement relevance 5/5Family-law relevance 5/5gold label pending
Research-use warning: This page contains machine-draft public annotations generated from public opinion text. The headnote is not Willie-approved gold-label work product and is not legal advice. Verify the full opinion and current law before relying on it.

Machine-draft headnote

Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10593929 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.

Retrieval annotation

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.

Category: pension / defined benefit issues

Evidence quotes

QDRO

decree divided the assets equally between the two parties, however, a subsequent Consent Order signed by both parties established a lump sum of money that husband owed wife. Once husband paid that lump sum, wife obtained a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for an additional share of one of the retirement accounts. Husband challenged that order pursuant to Rules 60(b)(4) and (5) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court reviews the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the efficacy of the QDRO. I. Facts On December 31, 2002, Joseph A. Marshall filed for a divorce from his long-time wife Car

retirement benefits

6, 2015 – Filed June 3, 2015 REVERSED Leon Edward Green, of Leon E. Green, PC, of Aiken, for Petitioner. Gregory P. Harlow, of Harlow Law Offices, PA, of Aiken, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: The subject of this dispute is the distribution of husband's retirement accounts in a divorce proceeding. The final divorce decree divided the assets equally between the two parties, however, a subsequent Consent Order signed by both parties established a lump sum of money that husband owed wife. Once husband paid that lump sum, wife obtained a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for an additional share of one of the retirement a

pension

g-time wife Carrie A. Marshall.1 On March 28, 2005, Family Court Judge Tunstall issued a Final Order terminating the marriage. The Final Order determined the division of husband's two retirement accounts. The parties agreed to equally divide husband's Bechtel Pension and 401(k) account. The parties disputed the value of the 401(k) account, but Judge Tunstall valued it at $445,000.00.2 At the time of the order, the Bechtel Pension was valued at $160,000.00. Additionally, the order states, \the husband's savings and investment

401(k)

Carrie A. Marshall.1 On March 28, 2005, Family Court Judge Tunstall issued a Final Order terminating the marriage. The Final Order determined the division of husband's two retirement accounts. The parties agreed to equally divide husband's Bechtel Pension and 401(k) account. The parties disputed the value of the 401(k) account, but Judge Tunstall valued it at $445,000.00.2 At the time of the order, the Bechtel Pension was valued at $160,000.00. Additionally, the order states, \the husband's savings and investment

Source and provenance

Source type
courtlistener_qdro_opinion_full_text
Permissions posture
public
Generated status
machine draft public v0
Review status
gold label pending
Jurisdiction metadata
US
Deterministic extraction
docket: 2014-000864 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
Generated at
May 14, 2026

Related public corpus pages

Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.

Clean opinion text

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
 CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
 EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

 THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
 In The Supreme Court

 Joseph A. Marshall, Petitioner,

 v.

 Carrie C. Marshall, Respondent.

 Appellate Case No. 2014-000864

 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

 Appeal From Aiken County
 The Honorable Dale Moore Gable, Family Court Judge

 Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-030
 Heard May 6, 2015 – Filed June 3, 2015

 REVERSED

 Leon Edward Green, of Leon E. Green, PC, of Aiken, for
 Petitioner.

 Gregory P. Harlow, of Harlow Law Offices, PA, of
 Aiken, for Respondent.
 PER CURIAM: The subject of this dispute is the distribution of husband's
retirement accounts in a divorce proceeding. The final divorce decree divided the
assets equally between the two parties, however, a subsequent Consent Order
signed by both parties established a lump sum of money that husband owed wife.
Once husband paid that lump sum, wife obtained a Qualified Domestic Relations
Order (QDRO) for an additional share of one of the retirement accounts. Husband
challenged that order pursuant to Rules 60(b)(4) and (5) of the South Carolina
Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court reviews the Court of Appeals' decision
regarding the efficacy of the QDRO.

 I. Facts
 On December 31, 2002, Joseph A. Marshall filed for a divorce from his
long-time wife Carrie A. Marshall.1 On March 28, 2005, Family Court Judge
Tunstall issued a Final Order terminating the marriage. The Final Order
determined the division of husband's two retirement accounts. The parties agreed
to equally divide husband's Bechtel Pension and 401(k) account. The parties
disputed the value of the 401(k) account, but Judge Tunstall valued it at
$445,000.00.2 At the time of the order, the Bechtel Pension was valued at
$160,000.00. Additionally, the order states, \the husband's savings and investment