← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 1069501

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 1069501 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

OUNTY L. A. Harris, Jr., Judge (Andrea R. Stiles; Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. (Torrence M. Harman; Harman & Harman, P.C., on brief), for appellee. John G. Myers, Jr., contends the trial judge erred in entering qualified domestic relations orders and a domestic relations order after more than twenty-one days had elapsed from the expiration of a sixty-day period reserved by the final divorce decree for entry of the orders. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rul

pension

t to Code § 17.1-400(D). ** Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Background On March 9, 1998, the parties entered into an agreement which contained a specified distribution to the parties of husband's retirement, pension, profit sharing, deferred compensation assets, and IRA account. In part, Section F of the agreement states that \[t]he parties agree to the following distribution of such assets

domestic relations order

A. Harris, Jr., Judge (Andrea R. Stiles; Williams, Mullen, Clark & Dobbins, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. (Torrence M. Harman; Harman & Harman, P.C., on brief), for appellee. John G. Myers, Jr., contends the trial judge erred in entering qualified domestic relations orders and a domestic relations order after more than twenty-one days had elapsed from the expiration of a sixty-day period reserved by the final divorce decree for entry of the orders. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court. See Rul

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 Benton, Humphreys and Retired Judge Duff*

JOHN G. MYERS, JR.
 MEMORANDUM OPINION **
v. Record No. 1034-01-2 PER CURIAM
 OCTOBER 2, 2001
CHRISTINA MYERS

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY
 L. A. Harris, Jr., Judge

 (Andrea R. Stiles; Williams, Mullen, Clark &
 Dobbins, P.C., on briefs), for appellant.

 (Torrence M. Harman; Harman & Harman, P.C.,
 on brief), for appellee.

 John G. Myers, Jr., contends the trial judge erred in

entering qualified domestic relations orders and a domestic

relations order after more than twenty-one days had elapsed from

the expiration of a sixty-day period reserved by the final divorce

decree for entry of the orders. Upon reviewing the record and

briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without

merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial

court. See Rule 5A:27.

 *
 Retired Judge Charles H. Duff took part in the
consideration of this case by designation pursuant to Code
§ 17.1-400(D).
 **
 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not
designated for publication.
 Background

 On March 9, 1998, the parties entered into an agreement which

contained a specified distribution to the parties of husband's

retirement, pension, profit sharing, deferred compensation assets,

and IRA account. In part, Section F of the agreement states that

\[t]he parties agree to the following distribution of such assets