LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 2631696
Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- pending
- Extracted reporter citation
- pending
- Docket / number
- 05-184. Supreme
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 2631696 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 5/5, 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“Wyland (Husband) and Cheryl Wyland (Wife) were divorced in 1999. In the divorce decree, the district court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement benefits in dividing the parties' marital property. The district court later entered an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relative to these retirement benefits. Husband appeals from that order, claiming that the order improperly modified the divorce decree. We affirm. ISSUE [¶2] The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred by entering the Second Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order. FACTS [¶3] The parties were married in 198”
retirement benefits“Wyoming. VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL [*] , KITE, and BURKE, JJ. VOIGT, Chief Justice. [¶1] Richard Wyland (Husband) and Cheryl Wyland (Wife) were divorced in 1999. In the divorce decree, the district court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement benefits in dividing the parties' marital property. The district court later entered an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relative to these retirement benefits. Husband appeals from that order, claiming that the order improperly modified the divorce decree. We affirm. ISSUE [¶2] The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district cour”
domestic relations order“usband) and Cheryl Wyland (Wife) were divorced in 1999. In the divorce decree, the district court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement benefits in dividing the parties' marital property. The district court later entered an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relative to these retirement benefits. Husband appeals from that order, claiming that the order improperly modified the divorce decree. We affirm. ISSUE [¶2] The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred by entering the Second Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order. FACTS [¶3] The parties were married in 198”
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
- docket: 05-184. Supreme
- 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
2006 WY 93 RICHARD LEE WYLAND, Appellant v. CHERYL LYNN WYLAND, n/k/a CHERYL LYNN DUNIGAN, Appellee. No. 05-184. Supreme Court of Wyoming. APRIL TERM, A.D. 2006. July 28, 2006. Representing Appellant: Ronald G. Pretty of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Representing Appellee: Donald A. Cole of Cheyenne, Wyoming. VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL [*] , KITE, and BURKE, JJ. VOIGT, Chief Justice. [¶1] Richard Wyland (Husband) and Cheryl Wyland (Wife) were divorced in 1999. In the divorce decree, the district court awarded Wife a portion of Husband's military retirement benefits in dividing the parties' marital property. The district court later entered an amended qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) relative to these retirement benefits. Husband appeals from that order, claiming that the order improperly modified the divorce decree. We affirm. ISSUE [¶2] The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred by entering the Second Amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order. FACTS [¶3] The parties were married in 1983, and were divorced in 1999. The divorce decree [1] provided that Wife was to receive \as her sole