← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

In Re the MARRIAGE OF Gloria Bonita BOYER and Larry Charles Boyer. Upon the Petition of Gloria Bonita Boyer, Appellee, and Concerning Larry Charles Boyer, Appellant

Citation: 538 N.W.2d 293 · September 20, 1995 · US

Extracted case name
In Re the MARRIAGE OF Gloria Bonita BOYER and Larry Charles Boyer. Upon the Petition of Gloria Bonita Boyer, Appellee, and Concerning Larry Charles Boyer, Appellant
Extracted reporter citation
538 N.W.2d 293
Docket / number
94-213. Supreme
QDRO relevance 1/5Retirement relevance 2/5Family-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: In Re the MARRIAGE OF Gloria Bonita BOYER and Larry Charles Boyer. Upon the Petition of Gloria Bonita Boyer, Appellee, and Concerning Larry Charles Boyer, Appellant is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to family-law retirement/property division context. 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 1/5, 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: family-law retirement/property division context

Evidence quotes

opening text

538 N.W.2d 293 (1995) In re the MARRIAGE OF Gloria Bonita BOYER and Larry Charles Boyer. Upon the Petition of Gloria Bonita Boyer, Appellee, And Concerning Larry Charles Boyer, Appellant. No. 94-213. Supreme Court of Iowa. September 20, 1995. Leslie Babich of Babich, McConnell & Renzo, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas D. Hanson and Brenda K. O'Neil of Hanson, Bjork & Russell, Des Moines, for appellee. Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, NEUMAN, ANDREASEN, and TERNUS, JJ. HARRIS, Justice. We granted further review in this dissolution of marriage case in order to resolve a question on which the court of appeals is divided. Under federal legislation, social se

Source and provenance

Source type
courtlistener_family_retirement_opinion_full_text
Permissions posture
public
Generated status
machine draft public v0
Review status
gold label pending
Jurisdiction metadata
US
Deterministic extraction
reporter: 538 N.W.2d 293 · docket: 94-213. Supreme
Generated at
May 14, 2026
View public source on courtlistener.com

Related public corpus pages

Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.

Clean opinion text

538 N.W.2d 293 (1995) 
 In re the MARRIAGE OF Gloria Bonita BOYER and Larry Charles Boyer. 
Upon the Petition of Gloria Bonita Boyer, Appellee, 
And Concerning 
Larry Charles Boyer, Appellant. 
 No. 94-213. 
 Supreme Court of Iowa. 
 September 20, 1995. 
 Leslie Babich of Babich, McConnell & Renzo, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant. 
 Thomas D. Hanson and Brenda K. O'Neil of Hanson, Bjork & Russell, Des Moines, for appellee. 
 Considered by McGIVERIN, C.J., and HARRIS, NEUMAN, ANDREASEN, and TERNUS, JJ. 
 HARRIS, Justice. 
 We granted further review in this dissolution of marriage case in order to resolve a question on which the court of appeals is divided. Under federal legislation, social security benefits for the most part are beyond the reach of those seeking satisfaction of state court judgments, and state courts are generally without power to order otherwise. The question here is whether, in ordering the division of marital property, a court may consider the fact that one party can anticipate greater social security benefits upon retirement. We agree that a court cannot \divide\" the anticipated benefits or establish any exact setoffs on such a basis. But we think a state court is not required to pretend to be oblivious of the fact that one party *294 expects benefits that will not be enjoyed by the other. This contrasting economic security can be weighed as a factor in fixing the economic terms of a dissolution decree. We vacate a contrary holding by the court of appeals. We modify and affirm the judgment of the district court.