← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 3765305

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 3765305 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

Mr. Billingham filed an amended motion, stating that he had retired, effective January 1, 2000, and that Mrs. Billingham would become entitled as of that date to begin receiving her share of the parties' retirement benefits, which had been divided by way of a QDRO in the 1992 divorce proceedings. Once again, Mr. Billingham requested the trial court to terminate spousal support; however, he did not reiterate his alternative request to have the amount of support \modified downward.\"

retirement benefits

nt resulting reduction in income. On December 27, 1999, Mr. Billingham filed an amended motion, stating that he had retired, effective January 1, 2000, and that Mrs. Billingham would become entitled as of that date to begin receiving her share of the parties' retirement benefits, which had been divided by way of a QDRO in the 1992 divorce proceedings. Once again, Mr. Billingham requested the trial court to terminate spousal support; however, he did not reiterate his alternative request to have the amount of support \modified downward.\"

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 James R. Billingham appeals from a decision modifying his monthly spousal support obligation owed to his former wife, plaintiff-appellee Mary Ann D. Billingham, from $1,600 to $1,000. Mr. Billingham argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not further reducing his spousal support obligation in light of his retirement and concomitant reduction in income. 
 We conclude that the trial court properly balanced Mrs. Billingham's need for spousal support against Mr. Billingham's ability to pay; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not reducing Mr. Billingham's spousal support obligation by a greater amount. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed. 
 I 
James and Maryann Billingham were divorced in 1992 after being married for 34 years. Pursuant to their divorce decree, Mr. Billingham was ordered to pay Mrs. Billingham $1,600 per month in spousal support. This order was made subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the trial court. 
 On July 13, 1999, Mr. Billingham filed a motion requesting that his spousal support obligation be terminated or, at least reduced, in light of his impending retirement in December, 1999, and the significant resulting reduction in income. On December 27, 1999, Mr. Billingham filed an amended motion, stating that he had retired, effective January 1, 2000, and that Mrs. Billingham would become entitled as of that date to begin receiving her share of the parties' retirement benefits, which had been divided by way of a QDRO in the 1992 divorce proceedings. Once again, Mr. Billingham requested the trial court to terminate spousal support; however, he did not reiterate his alternative request to have the amount of support \modified downward.\"