LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 3773143
Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- pending
- Extracted reporter citation
- pending
- Docket / number
- pending
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3773143 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“. {¶ 3} Nathan and Kathleen were divorced on June 2, 1994. The terms of the divorce decree vested in Kathleen entitlement to one-half of Nathan's retirement benefits, and specified that division of the benefits would be effected by subsequent QDROs, or Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension benefits plans. {¶ 4} On November 16, 2001, the trial court journalized another QDRO containing instructions for the di”
retirement benefits“f. Therefore, this Court may accept Nathan's statement of the facts and issues as correct. See App.R. 18(C). {¶ 3} Nathan and Kathleen were divorced on June 2, 1994. The terms of the divorce decree vested in Kathleen entitlement to one-half of Nathan's retirement benefits, and specified that division of the benefits would be effected by subsequent QDROs, or Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension ben”
pension“Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension benefits plans. {¶ 4} On November 16, 2001, the trial court journalized another QDRO containing instructions for the division of Nathan's interest in a \U.S. Steel Corporation Plan for Non-Union Employee Pension Benefits (Rev. 1998).\" Approximately one month later”
domestic relations order“; 3} Nathan and Kathleen were divorced on June 2, 1994. The terms of the divorce decree vested in Kathleen entitlement to one-half of Nathan's retirement benefits, and specified that division of the benefits would be effected by subsequent QDROs, or Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension benefits plans. {¶ 4} On November 16, 2001, the trial court journalized another QDRO containing instructions for the di”
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
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Nathan Eden has appealed from an order of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas that dismissed his motion for relief from judgment. This Court reverses.
I.
{¶ 2} As an initial matter, we note that Plaintiff-Appellee Kathleen Eden did not file an appellate brief. Therefore, this Court may accept Nathan's statement of the facts and issues as correct. See App.R. 18(C).
{¶ 3} Nathan and Kathleen were divorced on June 2, 1994. The terms of the divorce decree vested in Kathleen entitlement to one-half of Nathan's retirement benefits, and specified that division of the benefits would be effected by subsequent QDROs, or Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, that would be incorporated into the decree. The trial court subsequently journalized and incorporated by reference into the judgment entry of divorce several QDROs providing for the division of Nathan's interest in certain pension benefits plans.
{¶ 4} On November 16, 2001, the trial court journalized another QDRO containing instructions for the division of Nathan's interest in a \U.S. Steel Corporation Plan for Non-Union Employee Pension Benefits (Rev. 1998).\" Approximately one month later