← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 3735597

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 3735597 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

ecree also stated that the parties would divide equally all rights to pension and Social Security benefits which were acquired during marriage. At the time, appellant was receiving monthly distributions from a fully vested pension. Almost two years later, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was filed, assigning half of the monthly pension distributions to appellee. The court stated that it retained jurisdiction to amend the QDRO to effectuate the court's intent under the QDRO and the judgment and to provide for the equalization of the total pension and social security benefits received by the parties. Both parties individually received

retirement benefits

2 a month from the pension plan. In February 1999, the monthly distribution decreased to $378.52 each. This decrease was the result of appellant reaching age 62 and thus becoming eligible to apply for early retirement Social Security benefits. 1 These early retirement benefits would total approximately $800 per month. Rather than apply for these benefits

pension

mes eligible for governmental- or employer-sponsored health care. This spousal support provision contained no reservation of jurisdiction, and appellee did not appeal the lack thereof. The decree also stated that the parties would divide equally all rights to pension and Social Security benefits which were acquired during marriage. At the time, appellant was receiving monthly distributions from a fully vested pension. Almost two years later, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was filed, assigning half of the monthly pension distributions to appellee. The court stated that it retained jurisdiction to amend the

domestic relations order

stated that the parties would divide equally all rights to pension and Social Security benefits which were acquired during marriage. At the time, appellant was receiving monthly distributions from a fully vested pension. Almost two years later, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was filed, assigning half of the monthly pension distributions to appellee. The court stated that it retained jurisdiction to amend the QDRO to effectuate the court's intent under the QDRO and the judgment and to provide for the equalization of the total pension and social security benefits received by the parties. Both parties individually received

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

OPINION 
Defendant-appellant Donald Camsky appeals the decision of the Belmont County Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Division, which incorporated an in-court agreement by appellant to apply for early retirement Social Security benefits into an order of the court. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded. 
 STATEMENT OF FACTS 
Appellant and appellee Irene Camsky were divorced by decree on November 8, 1993. The decree ordered appellant to pay $50 per month in spousal support to appellee until she dies, remarries or becomes eligible for governmental- or employer-sponsored health care. This spousal support provision contained no reservation of jurisdiction, and appellee did not appeal the lack thereof. The decree also stated that the parties would divide equally all rights to pension and Social Security benefits which were acquired during marriage. At the time, appellant was receiving monthly distributions from a fully vested pension. 
 Almost two years later, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was filed, assigning half of the monthly pension distributions to appellee. The court stated that it retained jurisdiction to amend the QDRO to effectuate the court's intent under the QDRO and the judgment and to provide for the equalization of the total pension and social security benefits received by the parties. Both parties individually received $752.52 a month from the pension plan. 
 In February 1999, the monthly distribution decreased to $378.52 each. This decrease was the result of appellant reaching age 62 and thus becoming eligible to apply for early retirement Social Security benefits. 1 These early retirement benefits would total approximately $800 per month. Rather than apply for these benefits