LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 1067582
Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- pending
- Extracted reporter citation
- pending
- Docket / number
- pending
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1067582 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order 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 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.
Category: QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues
Evidence quotes
QDRO“Benjamin N. A. Kendrick, Judge David D. Masterman (Cheryl K. Graham; Condo & Masterman, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Stephen G. Cochran (Cochran & Rathbun, P.C., on brief), for appellee. William J. Fahey appeals an order which amended an existing qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relating to the distribution of Mr. Fahey's Keogh plan. By unpublished opinion dated July 23, 1996, a panel of this Court concluded that the court was without jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a”
domestic relations order“N. A. Kendrick, Judge David D. Masterman (Cheryl K. Graham; Condo & Masterman, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Stephen G. Cochran (Cochran & Rathbun, P.C., on brief), for appellee. William J. Fahey appeals an order which amended an existing qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relating to the distribution of Mr. Fahey's Keogh plan. By unpublished opinion dated July 23, 1996, a panel of this Court concluded that the court was without jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a”
valuation/division“hout jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a decree of the trial court entered July 26, 1993, which reserved equitable distribution for subsequent adjudication. Thereafter, on July 28, 1994, the parties executed a property settlement agreement (agreement) which was incorporated into a consent order dated August 31, 1994. Mr. Fahey owned three Keogh accounts, valued by the agreement at $214,000, and the terms of the agreement required him to \promptly arrange to transfer to [Mrs.”
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: Chief Judge Moon, Judges Baker, Benton, Coleman, Willis, Bray, Fitzpatrick, Annunziata and Overton Argued at Richmond, Virginia WILLIAM J. FAHEY OPINION BY v. Record Nos. 2477-95-4 and JUDGE RICHARD S. BRAY 2773-95-4 FEBRUARY 25, 1997 MARY LUCRETIA FAHEY UPON A REHEARING EN BANC FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY Benjamin N. A. Kendrick, Judge David D. Masterman (Cheryl K. Graham; Condo & Masterman, P.C., on brief), for appellant. Stephen G. Cochran (Cochran & Rathbun, P.C., on brief), for appellee. William J. Fahey appeals an order which amended an existing qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relating to the distribution of Mr. Fahey's Keogh plan. By unpublished opinion dated July 23, 1996, a panel of this Court concluded that the court was without jurisdiction to modify the prior order and reversed the amended QDRO. Upon rehearing en banc, we concur in the panel decision and reverse the amended QDRO. The parties were divorced by a decree of the trial court entered July 26, 1993, which reserved equitable distribution for subsequent adjudication. Thereafter, on July 28, 1994, the parties executed a property settlement agreement (agreement) which was incorporated into a consent order dated August 31, 1994. Mr. Fahey owned three Keogh accounts, valued by the agreement at $214,000, and the terms of the agreement required him to \promptly arrange to transfer to [Mrs. Fahey] one-half (½)