LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 1076169
Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- pending
- Extracted reporter citation
- pending
- Docket / number
- pending
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1076169 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“OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE William N. Alexander, II, Judge Robert P. Dwoskin for appellant. Stacey W. Moreau (Williams, Stilwell, Morrison, Williams and Light, on brief), for appellee. Glenn Wisdom (husband) appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), interpreting his divorce decree to create a property right in his military retirement pension in favor of Faith Wisdom (Hyler) (wife). Husband contends on appeal that 1) the QDRO effected a substantive change to the decree, which is barred by Rule 1:1 and 2) even if it wasn't a substantive change, 1 the tri”
pension“on, Williams and Light, on brief), for appellee. Glenn Wisdom (husband) appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), interpreting his divorce decree to create a property right in his military retirement pension in favor of Faith Wisdom (Hyler) (wife). Husband contends on appeal that 1) the QDRO effected a substantive change to the decree, which is barred by Rule 1:1 and 2) even if it wasn't a substantive change, 1 the trial court's interpretation of the decree is plainly wrong. Because we find that the QDRO was not a substantive change and the trial court's”
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 Baker, Coleman and Overton Argued at Salem, Virginia GLENN EDWARD WISDOM MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0368-97-3 JUDGE NELSON T. OVERTON JANUARY 13, 1998 FAITH WISDOM (HYLER) FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF DANVILLE William N. Alexander, II, Judge Robert P. Dwoskin for appellant. Stacey W. Moreau (Williams, Stilwell, Morrison, Williams and Light, on brief), for appellee. Glenn Wisdom (husband) appeals a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), entered pursuant to Code § 20-107.3(K)(4), interpreting his divorce decree to create a property right in his military retirement pension in favor of Faith Wisdom (Hyler) (wife). Husband contends on appeal that 1) the QDRO effected a substantive change to the decree, which is barred by Rule 1:1 and 2) even if it wasn't a substantive change, 1 the trial court's interpretation of the decree is plainly wrong. Because we find that the QDRO was not a substantive change and the trial court's interpretation of the decree is supported by * Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Husband also included in the \Questions Presented\" portion