LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 859699
Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- SCT JOAN WILLIAMS HOLLOMAN v. RONALD B. HOLLOMAN DATE OF JUDGMENT
- Extracted reporter citation
- pending
- Docket / number
- pending
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 859699 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 2/5, 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“a one-half interest in Ronald B. Holloman's Savings and Investment Plan maintained through his employer. The chancellor was asked to interpret two clauses of the property settlement agreement, the modification of the final decree of divorce and the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and additionally to determine whether Ronald was in contempt for failure to provide income and retirement fund information. ¶2. The chancellor held that the issue was the \interpretation of a contract”
domestic relations order“interest in Ronald B. Holloman's Savings and Investment Plan maintained through his employer. The chancellor was asked to interpret two clauses of the property settlement agreement, the modification of the final decree of divorce and the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and additionally to determine whether Ronald was in contempt for failure to provide income and retirement fund information. ¶2. The chancellor held that the issue was the \interpretation of a contract”
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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 94-CA-00025-SCT JOAN WILLIAMS HOLLOMAN v. RONALD B. HOLLOMAN DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/06/93 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WOODROW WILSON BRAND JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: OKTIBBEHA COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHARLES T. YOST ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: REX F. SANDERSON NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISPOSITION: REVERSED, RENDERED, AND REMANDED - 9/19/96 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: 10/3/96 MANDATE ISSUED: 5/5/97 EN BANC. SMITH, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Joan Williams Holloman appeals to this Court from an adverse decision of the Oktibbeha County Chancery Court where she had sought a one-half interest in Ronald B. Holloman's Savings and Investment Plan maintained through his employer. The chancellor was asked to interpret two clauses of the property settlement agreement, the modification of the final decree of divorce and the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and additionally to determine whether Ronald was in contempt for failure to provide income and retirement fund information. ¶2. The chancellor held that the issue was the \interpretation of a contract