LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 3724526
Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- pending
- Extracted reporter citation
- pending
- Docket / number
- pending
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3724526 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“{¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority. {¶ 25} By her decision filed October 18, 2004, the magistrate determined that Mr. Dinunzio's pension should be divided equally between the parties, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The magistrate further determined that, in order to equalize the parties' income, Ms. Dinunzio should receive one-half of the difference between her Social Security payments, and Mr. Dinunzio's Social Security disability payments. The magistrate determined that Ms. Dinunzio received $ 620 per month from Social Security; Mr. Dinunzio $ 1,262 per month. The”
pension“{¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority. {¶ 25} By her decision filed October 18, 2004, the magistrate determined that Mr. Dinunzio's pension should be divided equally between the parties, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The magistrate further determined that, in order to equalize the parties' income, Ms. Dinunzio should receive one-half of the difference between her Social Security payments, and Mr. Dinunzio's Social Security disability payments. The magistrate determined that Ms. Dinunz”
domestic relations order“{¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority. {¶ 25} By her decision filed October 18, 2004, the magistrate determined that Mr. Dinunzio's pension should be divided equally between the parties, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The magistrate further determined that, in order to equalize the parties' income, Ms. Dinunzio should receive one-half of the difference between her Social Security payments, and Mr. Dinunzio's Social Security disability payments. The magistrate determined that Ms. Dinunzio received $ 620 per month from Social Security; Mr. Dinunzio $ 1,262 per month. The”
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
{¶ 24} I respectfully dissent from the majority.
{¶ 25} By her decision filed October 18, 2004, the magistrate determined that Mr. Dinunzio's pension should be divided equally between the parties, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The magistrate further determined that, in order to equalize the parties' income, Ms. Dinunzio should receive one-half of the difference between her Social Security payments, and Mr. Dinunzio's Social Security disability payments. The magistrate determined that Ms. Dinunzio received $ 620 per month from Social Security; Mr. Dinunzio $ 1,262 per month. The magistrate determined that equalization required Mr. Dinunzio to pay Ms. Dinunzio $ 321 per month.
{¶ 26} By a judgment entry filed June 3, 2005, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision of October 18, 2004. The terms relative to division of the parties' Social Security benefits were further incorporated in the trial court's judgment entry of divorce, filed July 19, 2005. *Page 7