← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 1065830

Date unknown · US

Extracted case name
pending
Extracted reporter citation
pending
Docket / number
pending
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 1065830 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

mitting on brief. Charles Wayne Williams and Sonjia Lord Williams were divorced by entry of an amended final decree entered July 10, 1997, which awarded the wife 50% of the husband's pension benefits. To carry out that decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt for failing to pay that amount to her. The trial court decreed that the wife was entitled to hal

retirement benefits

decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt for failing to pay that amount to her. The trial court decreed that the wife was entitled to half of all benefits and ordered the husband to pay all arrearages. The trial court did not hold the husband in contempt but amended the original amended final decree of July 10, 1997, nunc pro tunc, to order

pension

B. Phillips; Phillips & Swanson, on brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on brief. Charles Wayne Williams and Sonjia Lord Williams were divorced by entry of an amended final decree entered July 10, 1997, which awarded the wife 50% of the husband's pension benefits. To carry out that decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt

domestic relations order

brief. Charles Wayne Williams and Sonjia Lord Williams were divorced by entry of an amended final decree entered July 10, 1997, which awarded the wife 50% of the husband's pension benefits. To carry out that decree, the trial court entered a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998. After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50% of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought to have the husband found in contempt for failing to pay that amount to her. The trial court decreed that the wife was entitled to hal

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
pending
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

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Coleman, Annunziata and Bumgardner

CHARLES WAYNE WILLIAMS
 OPINION BY
v. Record No. 1297-99-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
 MARCH 28, 2000
SONJIA LORD WILLIAMS

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY
 Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge

 (Barry M. Tatel; Neil E. McNally; Key,
 Tatel & McNally, on brief), for appellant.
 Appellant submitting on brief.

 (Charles B. Phillips; Phillips & Swanson, on
 brief), for appellee. Appellee submitting on
 brief.

 Charles Wayne Williams and Sonjia Lord Williams were

divorced by entry of an amended final decree entered July 10,

1997, which awarded the wife 50% of the husband's pension

benefits. To carry out that decree, the trial court entered a

qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) January 26, 1998.

After the QDRO went into effect, the wife no longer received 50%

of the benefits. She petitioned for clarification that she was

entitled to half of the husband's retirement benefits and sought

to have the husband found in contempt for failing to pay that

amount to her.

 The trial court decreed that the wife was entitled to half

of all benefits and ordered the husband to pay all arrearages.
 The trial court did not hold the husband in contempt but amended

the original amended final decree of July 10, 1997, nunc pro

tunc, to order him to pay the balance not paid directly by the

pension administrator. The husband argues on appeal that the

trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify substantively the

amended final decree. The husband also argues that the trial

court erroneously applied Code § 8.01-428(B) and erred in

considering certain exhibits. For the following reasons, we

affirm.

 The trial court first entered a final decree of divorce on

April 22, 1997. That decree adjudicated spousal support, the

husband's pension, and the proceeds from settlement of the

husband's personal injury claim against his employer. Both

parties objected to portions of that final decree, and the

husband appealed. Pending the appeal, the parties negotiated a

settlement and submitted it to the trial court. When the trial

court incorporated the agreement into an amended final decree,

the husband withdrew his appeal.

 Under the amended final decree, the wife waived spousal

support and any interest in the husband's personal injury

settlement. She received 50% of all future pension payments

paid to the husband beginning July 1, 1997. The trial court

ordered the husband to pay half of his pension benefits directly

to the wife during the interim between the entry of the amended

order and the processing of a QDRO. The trial court ordered the

 - 2 -
 wife to prepare a QDRO directing the plan administrator to pay

to her \fifty percent (50%) of each pension payment paid to