← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 10677062

Citation: Domestic Relations Order · Date unknown · US

Extracted case name
pending
Extracted reporter citation
Domestic Relations Order
Docket / number
Entry No. 1
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 10677062 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

id not respond. This court heard arguments on October 3, 2023, and granted the motion to dismiss. The court explained its reasons in detail on the record and sets them out briefly below. Jackson did not seek to enter a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) until 2023, after the death of her ex-husband. Although the Fifth Circuit has not ruled directly on this topic, there is a consensus among courts, both in this district and beyond, that "a surviving spouse annuity vests on the date of the participant's death and a proposed QDRO entered posthumously is not enforceable." Stahl v. Exxon Corp., 212 F. Supp

pension

HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 13, 2023 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION § TAWANDA A. JACKSON, § § Plaintiff, § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-3023 § CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND § SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, § et al., § § Defendants. § FINAL JUDGMENT Tawanda Jackson sued the Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and the Estate of Van LaPeal Jackson. (Docket Entry No. 1). Tawanda Jackson and Van LaPeal Jackson divorced in September 5, 1989. In July 2023, Tawanda Jackson sued the Fund and the Estate in state court, assert

domestic relations order

to dismiss, and Jackson did not respond. This court heard arguments on October 3, 2023, and granted the motion to dismiss. The court explained its reasons in detail on the record and sets them out briefly below. Jackson did not seek to enter a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) until 2023, after the death of her ex-husband. Although the Fifth Circuit has not ruled directly on this topic, there is a consensus among courts, both in this district and beyond, that "a surviving spouse annuity vests on the date of the participant's death and a proposed QDRO entered posthumously is not enforceable." Stahl v. Exxon Corp., 212 F

survivor benefits

n did not seek to enter a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) until 2023, after the death of her ex-husband. Although the Fifth Circuit has not ruled directly on this topic, there is a consensus among courts, both in this district and beyond, that "a surviving spouse annuity vests on the date of the participant's death and a proposed QDRO entered posthumously is not enforceable." Stahl v. Exxon Corp., 212 F. Supp. 2d 657, 669 (S.D. Tex. 2002) (collecting cases); see Guzman v. Commonwealth Edison Co., No. 99-CV-582, 2000 WL 1898846, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2000) (‘rights to survivor's benefits are fixed as the part

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
reporter: Domestic Relations Order · docket: Entry No. 1
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT October 13, 2023 
 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
 HOUSTON DIVISION 

 § 
TAWANDA A. JACKSON, § 
 § 
 Plaintiff, § 
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-23-3023 
 § 
CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND § 
SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, § 
et al., § 
 § 
 Defendants. § 

 FINAL JUDGMENT 

 Tawanda Jackson sued the Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas Pension Fund 
and the Estate of Van LaPeal Jackson. (Docket Entry No. 1). Tawanda Jackson and Van LaPeal 
Jackson divorced in September 5, 1989. In July 2023, Tawanda Jackson sued the Fund and the 
Estate in state court, asserting that she was entitled to a portion of her ex-husband's retirement 
benefits. 
 The defendants moved to dismiss, and Jackson did not respond. This court heard arguments 
on October 3, 2023, and granted the motion to dismiss. The court explained its reasons in detail 
on the record and sets them out briefly below. 
 Jackson did not seek to enter a Qualifying Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) until 2023, 
after the death of her ex-husband. Although the Fifth Circuit has not ruled directly on this topic, 
there is a consensus among courts, both in this district and beyond, that "a surviving spouse annuity 
vests on the date of the participant's death and a proposed QDRO entered posthumously is not 
enforceable." Stahl v. Exxon Corp., 212 F. Supp. 2d 657, 669 (S.D. Tex. 2002) (collecting cases); 
see Guzman v. Commonwealth Edison Co., No. 99-CV-582, 2000 WL 1898846, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 
Dec. 28, 2000) (‘rights to survivor's benefits are fixed as the participant's death, and a valid QDRO 
cannot be entered after the participant's death that would expand the liability of the Plan."); 
Samaroo v. Samaroo, 193 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 1999). 
 Because Jackson did not seek entry of a QDRO before her ex-husband's death, she cannot 
now enforce her proposed QDRO. Even if she could, because the benefits she seeks were already 
fully and properly paid long before she sought a QDRO, no funds remained when she did so. There 
are no benefits that could be payable under a newly entered QDRO. (Docket Entry No. 3 at 8). 
Her claim is without merit. 
 This civil action is dismissed with prejudice. This is a final judgment. 

 SIGNED on October 13, 2023, at Houston, Texas. 

 Lee H. Rosenthal 
 United States District Judge