← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 2739477

Citation: domestic relations order · Date unknown · US

Extracted case name
pending
Extracted reporter citation
domestic relations order
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 2739477 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

pension

STIN E. HENSON, No. 62654 Appellant, vs. HOWARD HALE HENSON, AL Respondent. OCT 02 2614 CL BY It .0i ti RA C it uE Appeal from a district court order modifying a qualified domestic relations order and denying appellant's motion for a judgment on pension payment arrearages. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge. Affirmed. Todd L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY, J.: In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a

domestic relations order

Nevi, Advance Opinion 71 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA KRISTIN E. HENSON, No. 62654 Appellant, vs. HOWARD HALE HENSON, AL Respondent. OCT 02 2614 CL BY It .0i ti RA C it uE Appeal from a district court order modifying a qualified domestic relations order and denying appellant's motion for a judgment on pension payment arrearages. Second Judicial District Court, Family Court Division, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge. Affirmed. Todd L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY

survivor benefits

L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno, for Appellant. Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno, for Respondent. BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.' OPINION By the Court, CHERRY, J.: In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a nonemployee spouse is entitled to survivor benefits if, in a divorce decree, 'The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Justice, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce 14 /3214 he or she is allocated a community property interest in the employee spouse's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. We are also asked to

valuation/division

is entitled to survivor benefits if, in a divorce decree, 'The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Justice, voluntarily recused himself from participation in the decision of this matter. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce 14 /3214 he or she is allocated a community property interest in the employee spouse's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. We are also asked to consider whether the nonemployee spouse must file a motion in the district court to immediately begin receiving his or her community property interest in the PERS pension plan when the employee spouse has reached retirement eligibility but has

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
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

130 Nevi, Advance Opinion 71
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

 KRISTIN E. HENSON, No. 62654
 Appellant,
 vs.
 HOWARD HALE HENSON,
 AL
 Respondent. OCT 02 2614
 CL

 BY
 It .0i ti RA
 C it uE

 Appeal from a district court order modifying a qualified
 domestic relations order and denying appellant's motion for a judgment on
 pension payment arrearages. Second Judicial District Court, Family
 Court Division, Washoe County; Bridget Robb Peck, Judge.
 Affirmed.

 Todd L. Torvinen, Reno; Richard F. Cornell, Reno,
 for Appellant.

 Rodney E. Sumpter, Reno,
 for Respondent.

 BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.'

 OPINION

 By the Court, CHERRY, J.:
 In this appeal, we are asked to consider whether a
 nonemployee spouse is entitled to survivor benefits if, in a divorce decree,

 'The Honorable James W. Hardesty, Justice, voluntarily recused
 himself from participation in the decision of this matter.

SUPREME COURT
 OF
 NEVADA

(0) 1947A ce 14 /3214
 he or she is allocated a community property interest in the employee
 spouse's Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pension plan. We
 are also asked to consider whether the nonemployee spouse must file a
 motion in the district court to immediately begin receiving his or her
 community property interest in the PERS pension plan when the
 employee spouse has reached retirement eligibility but has not yet retired.
 We hold that, unless specifically set forth in the divorce
 decree, an allocation of a community property interest in the employee
 spouse's pension plan does not also entitle the nonemployee spouse to
 survivor benefits. We further conclude that, because there are varying
 times at which a nonemployee spouse may elect to begin receiving his or
 her portion of the community property interest in the employee spouse's
 pension benefits, the nonemployee spouse must first file a motion in the
 district court requesting immediate receipt of those benefits.
 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 Howard Henson and Kristin Henson were married in
 September 1984. The parties filed for divorce in November 1992, and in
 July 1995, the district court entered a divorce decree resolving community
 property and support issues. Of interest in this case, the court applied the
 \time rule\" and the \"wait and see\" approach