Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor

Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor Date: 1999-02-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution 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.


Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor

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.


Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor

QDRO: Express Mutual Fund valued as of the date of this memorandum. The husband shall be entitled to a credit of $2200. which represents that portion of the funds acquired prior to the marriage. This transfer shall be without any tax consequences to either party. A QDRO may be necessary. 6) The wife is awarded 50% of the Fleet IRA valued as of the date of this memorandum. This transfer shall be without any tax consequences to either party. 7) The wife is awarded 50% of the First Fidelity 401(k) valued as of the date of this memorandum. This transfer shall be without any tax consequences to either party. A QDRO may be n


Michael Taylor v. Ellen Taylor

401(k): sequences to either party. A QDRO may be necessary. 6) The wife is awarded 50% of the Fleet IRA valued as of the date of this memorandum. This transfer shall be without any tax consequences to either party. 7) The wife is awarded 50% of the First Fidelity 401(k) valued as of the date of this memorandum. This transfer shall be without any tax consequences to either party. A QDRO may be necessary. 8) In the event QDRO's are required to effectuate the above transfer of funds, counsel for the wife shall prepare the CT Page 2405 appropriate documents. Plaintiff's counsel shall cooperate in the drafting and acceptance


Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio

Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Date: 1995-12-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio 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.


Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio


Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio

pension: issance Workshop, together with his tools and equipment associated with the business. 7. The defendant shall transfer title of the 1987 Volvo automobile to the plaintiff. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff a fifty (50%) percent interest in his pension with the Scarsdale Board of Education by way of a Domestic Relations Order. The value of the Pension as of December 31, 1995 shall be used to determine the plaintiff's fifty percent interest. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may occur to implement this order. Specifically, the court reserves jurisdiction to determine any issue co


Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio

domestic relations order: sociated with the business. 7. The defendant shall transfer title of the 1987 Volvo automobile to the plaintiff. 8. The defendant shall assign to the plaintiff a fifty (50%) percent interest in his pension with the Scarsdale Board of Education by way of a Domestic Relations Order. The value of the Pension as of December 31, 1995 shall be used to determine the plaintiff's fifty percent interest. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may occur to implement this order. Specifically, the court reserves jurisdiction to determine any issue concerning the survivor benefits that may be available to the plaintiff. Howe


Mollie Loguercio v. Paul Loguercio

survivor benefits: ber 31, 1995 shall be used to determine the plaintiff's fifty percent interest. The court reserves jurisdiction to resolve any problems that may occur to implement this order. Specifically, the court reserves jurisdiction to determine any issue concerning the survivor benefits that may be available to the plaintiff. However, the court expects the parties to resolve this outstanding issue either by stipulation or request for a hearing within six months of the date of this memorandum. 9. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the payment of the following debts: CT Page 14080 a. The Learning Clinic $10,900 b. Atty. Laviano $ 2,


Nagle v. Nagle

Nagle v. Nagle Citation: 2025 ND 94. Extracted reporter citation: 2025 ND 94. Docket: 20240260. Date: 2025-05-08. Machine-draft public headnote: Nagle v. Nagle 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.


Nagle v. Nagle

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 1/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


Nagle v. Nagle

retirement benefits: ntact." Id. ¶¶ 3, 8. This Court concluded the district court should have considered these facts "in making an equitable division of the property." Id. ¶ 8. This Court also found the court's "finding Joyce Nelson made no contribution to the accumulation of the retirement benefits since the 1991 divorce is without support in the record and is clearly erroneous." Id. [¶18] Stephenson also did not hold the parties' first marriage had to be considered when determining the length of the second marriage, which was itself long term. 2011 ND 57, ¶¶ 3-4 (remarried in 1997 and divorced in 2008). This Court appears to have recognized the sec


Nagle v. Nagle

valuation/division: divorce judgment. He argues the district court erred by treating the parties' second marriage as a long-term marriage and by finding a near equal distribution of the parties' marital estate was fair and equitable. Gene Nagle also claims the court erred in its property division because the court awarded Suzanne Nagle property that she previously waived her rights to in their first divorce. Suzanne Nagle argues Gene Nagle did not timely appeal the court's denial of his motion in limine and is precluded from appealing issues decided in reliance on Nelson v. Nelson, 1998 ND 176, 584 N.W.2d 527. We conclude the court's equitable distr


Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.

Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo. Date: 2000-11-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo. 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.


Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.


Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.

QDRO: intiff harmless regarding the automobile lease payments on the vehicle he operates. B. By way of Attorney's fees 1. No attorney's fees are awarded in favor of either party. C. Miscellaneous Orders 1. Counsel for the plaintiff is ordered to prepare the QDRO at the plaintiff's expense. The court retains jurisdiction over any dispute that may arise over the language of the QDRO. 2. All pendente lite orders remain in effect until the date this decision is filed and in the event there is any arrearage arising from such pendente lite orders such arrearage is not merged into the judgment. 3. The parties are to e


Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.

retirement benefits: wn on the defendant's financial affidavit are awarded to the defendant. 11. The defendant is ordered to name the plaintiff as beneficiary of his $100,000 Kemper Life Insurance until such time as she commences to receive payment under his United Technologies Retirement Plan. 12. The TIAA/CREF Plan shown on the defendant's financial affidavit is awarded to the plaintiff. The defendant is to transfer that full fund to her in an amount of not less than $10,000 by December 13, 2000. In the event there is less than $10,000 in that plan then he is to pay the difference to her within sixty days from the date of this order. 13. Th


Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.

pension: separate account after the divorce papers were served on him. Shortly after telling his wife that he wanted a divorce, the defendant withdrew approximately $2,000 from joint savings and used it for vacation for himself and his girlfriend. He has a TIAA/CREF Pension Plan with a value of $10,000. He also has a United Technology Pension plan. The United Technology pension plan has a number of forms of benefit payment including the following based on his commencing to collect his pension benefit on April 1, 2013 at age 62: Form of benefit payment Monthly benefit Single Life Annuity $1,418.13 50% Contingent Annuity $1,


Nancy A. Geronimo v. Roger J. Geronimo.

valuation/division: His period of credited service for pension benefits is January 4, 1979 to June 30, 1992. This court has considered the provisions of § 46b-82 regarding the issue of alimony, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issue of property division, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following orders: ORDERS A. By way of dissolution of marriage 1. The marriage between the parties is dissolved and each party is declared to be single and unmarried. CT Page 13953 B. By way of Alimony 1. No periodic or lump sum alimony i


Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.

Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge. Date: 2000-10-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge. 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.


Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.

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.


Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.

QDRO: refinance but limited to legal fees and the like and excluding any tax or other escrow accounts required by the lender. 11. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS . Each of the parties shall transfer to the other 50% of their respective deferred compensation plans by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. The deferred compensation plans shall include the 401k and other pension plans presently owned by the defendant and the MERF account presently owned by the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 12. LEGAL FEES . Each of the parties shall pay whatever amounts are still due and owing to their respective attorneys. The legal fees for the attorney


Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.

pension: red by the lender. 11. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS . Each of the parties shall transfer to the other 50% of their respective deferred compensation plans by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. The deferred compensation plans shall include the 401k and other pension plans presently owned by the defendant and the MERF account presently owned by the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 12. LEGAL FEES . Each of the parties shall pay whatever amounts are still due and owing to their respective attorneys. The legal fees for the attorney for the minor children shall be divided equally between the parties and pai


Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.

401(k): accounts required by the lender. 11. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS . Each of the parties shall transfer to the other 50% of their respective deferred compensation plans by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. The deferred compensation plans shall include the 401k and other pension plans presently owned by the defendant and the MERF account presently owned by the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 12. LEGAL FEES . Each of the parties shall pay whatever amounts are still due and owing to their respective attorneys. The legal fees for the attorney for the minor children shall be divided equally between t


Nancy Hooge v. Mark E. Hooge.

domestic relations order: but limited to legal fees and the like and excluding any tax or other escrow accounts required by the lender. 11. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS . Each of the parties shall transfer to the other 50% of their respective deferred compensation plans by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. The deferred compensation plans shall include the 401k and other pension plans presently owned by the defendant and the MERF account presently owned by the plaintiff. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 12. LEGAL FEES . Each of the parties shall pay whatever amounts are still due and owing to their respective attorneys. The legal fees for the attorney


Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger

Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger Date: 1996-07-29. Machine-draft public headnote: Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger 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.


Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger

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.


Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger

QDRO: health insurance for the plaintiff under COBRA for the maximum period allowed by law, including orthodontia coverage. The parties are to divide equally the cost of said COBRA coverage. E. BY WAY OF PROPERTY ORDERS 1. The court assigns to the plaintiff by QDRO, one-half of the market value of all of the deferred compensation plans shown on the defendant's financial affidavit. Said one half is to also have an approximate equal basis. The court retains jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise involving the QDRO, including the language thereof. Counsel for the plaintiff is to prepare and sign the QDRO, and send


Nancy M. Ollinger v. Martin Ollinger

valuation/division: Y orthodontia, and a second option of $21.42 monthly that does not include orthodontia. The court has considered the provisions of § 46b-82 regarding the issues of alimony, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-81 (c) regarding the issues of property division, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-56 and § 46b-56a regarding the issues of custody and visitation, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-84 and the child support guidelines regarding the issue of support, and has considered the provisions of § 46b-62 regarding the issue of attorney's fees. The court enters the following or


Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter

Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter Date: 1991-04-29. Machine-draft public headnote: Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter 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.


Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter


Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter

QDRO: parties have agreed, the plaintiff shall execute a waiver of her interest in the survivor annuity and all future interest she may have shall be extinguished so that the defendant may receive the maximum benefit allowable. The plaintiff's counsel shall draft a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for the Court's signature. Any cost associated with preparing the QUADRO shall be paid out of the Frederick Street escrow account. 3. Each party is awarded $2,000.00 dollars in counsel fees, payable from the Frederick Street escrow account. 4. No alimony is awarded either party. Elaine Gordon, Judge


Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter

domestic relations order: ve agreed, the plaintiff shall execute a waiver of her interest in the survivor annuity and all future interest she may have shall be extinguished so that the defendant may receive the maximum benefit allowable. The plaintiff's counsel shall draft a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for the Court's signature. Any cost associated with preparing the QUADRO shall be paid out of the Frederick Street escrow account. 3. Each party is awarded $2,000.00 dollars in counsel fees, payable from the Frederick Street escrow account. 4. No alimony is awarded either party. Elaine Gordon, Judge


Naomi Carpenter v. Vernon Carpenter

survivor benefits: eet property and interest thereon, after payment for the costs outlined below, shall be divided between the parties, 75 per cent to the plaintiff 25 to the defendant. 2. As the parties have agreed, the plaintiff shall execute a waiver of her interest in the survivor annuity and all future interest she may have shall be extinguished so that the defendant may receive the maximum benefit allowable. The plaintiff's counsel shall draft a Qualified Domestic Relations Order for the Court's signature. Any cost associated with preparing the QUADRO shall be paid out of the Frederick Street escrow account. 3. Each party is awarded $2,


Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.

Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky. Date: 2000-10-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky. 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.


Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.


Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.

QDRO: terest in the joint fidelity account in the approximate amount of $134,170.00. 6. LIFE INSURANCE . The defendant shall retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. 7. 401K PLAN . The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, $182,579.00 of his 401k plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 8. INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT . The plaintiff shall retain her individual retirement account in the approximate amount of $84,168.00. 9. ANNUITIES . The plaintiff shall retain her Travelers annuity in the approximate amount of $2,431.00 and the Walnut Hill annuity in the approximate


Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.

retirement benefits: l retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. 7. 401K PLAN . The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, $182,579.00 of his 401k plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 8. INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT . The plaintiff shall retain her individual retirement account in the approximate amount of $84,168.00. 9. ANNUITIES . The plaintiff shall retain her Travelers annuity in the approximate amount of $2,431.00 and the Walnut Hill annuity in the approximate amount of $1,614.00. 10. AETNA PENSION . The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff 32% of his exi


Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.

pension: ors of Arts degree. In addition she has received a certification for interpersonal therapeutic medicine. When the parties married she was employed as a clerk at a printing company. Thereafter she was employed with the State of Connecticut, Ravies Real Estate, Pension Consultants and now is engaged in her present employment. Her previous employment consisted primarily of clerical and secretarial positions. For approximately two and one-half years she was engaged in recreational therapy at three nursing homes. CT Page 13399 The defendant is fifty-four years of age. He is in good health. He received a college degree from


Natalia Zastawsky v. Roman Zastawsky.

401(k): er, the defendant shall release to the plaintiff all of his interest in the joint fidelity account in the approximate amount of $134,170.00. 6. LIFE INSURANCE . The defendant shall retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. 7. 401K PLAN . The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, $182,579.00 of his 401k plan. The court shall retain jurisdiction. 8. INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNT . The plaintiff shall retain her individual retirement account in the approximate amount of $84,168.00. 9. ANNUITIES . The plaintiff shall retain her Travelers an


Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.

Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris. Date: 2000-08-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris. is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to ERISA / defined contribution 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.


Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.

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.


Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.

QDRO: . Bank Accounts: Each of the parties shall retain their own bank accounts. 9. Incentive Savings Plan (401K): The plaintiff shall retain her Incentive Savings Plan 401K. 10. Espirit Retirement Plan: The defendant shall transfer to the defendant by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $50,600.00 of his Espirit Retirement Plan. The court retains jurisdiction. The balance of the Plan shall be retained by the defendant. 11. Life Insurance: The defendant shall retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. The defendant shall name the minor child as the irrevocable beneficiary of his policies as long has


Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.

retirement benefits: p of the 1997 Acura 2.2 CL and assume and pay the loan balance thereon. 8. Bank Accounts: Each of the parties shall retain their own bank accounts. 9. Incentive Savings Plan (401K): The plaintiff shall retain her Incentive Savings Plan 401K. 10. Espirit Retirement Plan: The defendant shall transfer to the defendant by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $50,600.00 of his Espirit Retirement Plan. The court retains jurisdiction. The balance of the Plan shall be retained by the defendant. 11. Life Insurance: The defendant shall retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. The d


Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.

401(k): ownership of the 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee and the defendant shall retain ownership of the 1997 Acura 2.2 CL and assume and pay the loan balance thereon. 8. Bank Accounts: Each of the parties shall retain their own bank accounts. 9. Incentive Savings Plan (401K): The plaintiff shall retain her Incentive Savings Plan 401K. 10. Espirit Retirement Plan: The defendant shall transfer to the defendant by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $50,600.00 of his Espirit Retirement Plan. The court retains jurisdiction. The balance of the Plan shall be retained by the defendant. 11. Life Insurance: The de


Norma A. Morris v. Ian G. Morris.

domestic relations order: ounts: Each of the parties shall retain their own bank accounts. 9. Incentive Savings Plan (401K): The plaintiff shall retain her Incentive Savings Plan 401K. 10. Espirit Retirement Plan: The defendant shall transfer to the defendant by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order the sum of $50,600.00 of his Espirit Retirement Plan. The court retains jurisdiction. The balance of the Plan shall be retained by the defendant. 11. Life Insurance: The defendant shall retain the cash surrender value of his present life insurance policies. The defendant shall name the minor child as the irrevocable beneficiary of his policies as long has


Pamela J. Reynolds v. George W. Reynolds. Date: 1991-03-12. Machine-draft public headnote: Pamela J. Reynolds v. George W. Reynolds. 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.


QDRO: lifetime of the defendant and until the death or remarriage of the plaintiff, or the plaintiff reaches the age of 62 or the retirement of the defendant, whichever event shall first occur. Pension Plans CT Page 2706 1. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) giving her a 45% interest in the defendant's pension with his employer at the time of the defendant's retirement, based on its value as of March 1, 1991. 2. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order giving her 50% of the value of the defendant's 401(k) Thrift Plan based on its value as of March 1, 1991. 3. The defend


retirement benefits: a responsible position at Olin Corporation where he has worked since 1979. The defendant has a yearly salary of $90,108 per annum. In addition, he has a pension plan valued at $40,973 as of March 1990; an Employee Thrift Plan of $120,000; (401K) an Individual Retirement Account of $16,504, and Certificates of Deposit in the principal amount of $64,447 It would appear that the marriage has been an unhappy one for several years. The defendant claimed the marriage broke down in 1979. The plaintiff claims the marriage broke down sometime in 1986. It was not until the summer of 1987 that the defendant took positive action to curb h


pension: is 46 years of age and in good health. A graduate of Georgia Institute of Technology, the defendant holds a responsible position at Olin Corporation where he has worked since 1979. The defendant has a yearly salary of $90,108 per annum. In addition, he has a pension plan valued at $40,973 as of March 1990; an Employee Thrift Plan of $120,000; (401K) an Individual Retirement Account of $16,504, and Certificates of Deposit in the principal amount of $64,447 It would appear that the marriage has been an unhappy one for several years. The defendant claimed the marriage broke down in 1979. The plaintiff claims the marriag


401(k): the defendant holds a responsible position at Olin Corporation where he has worked since 1979. The defendant has a yearly salary of $90,108 per annum. In addition, he has a pension plan valued at $40,973 as of March 1990; an Employee Thrift Plan of $120,000; (401K) an Individual Retirement Account of $16,504, and Certificates of Deposit in the principal amount of $64,447 It would appear that the marriage has been an unhappy one for several years. The defendant claimed the marriage broke down in 1979. The plaintiff claims the marriage broke down sometime in 1986. It was not until the summer of 1987 that the defenda


Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane

Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane Date: 1998-08-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane 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.


Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane


Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane

QDRO: the parties shall return to court for further hearing thereon. OTHER PROPERTY A. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the following: 1. 50% of the defendant's 401(k) plan; with 50% to the defendant; 2. 30% of the defendant's pension ($43,000) by means of a QDRO. The defendant shall be entitled to the remainder of his pension; 3. Her IRA and pension; 4. The 1992 Buick motor vehicle and her clothing, jewelry and personal possessions; and 5. Dining room set with six chairs and hutch. B. The defendant shall be entitled to the following, addition to the above; 1. His 1996 Cadillac motor vehicle; 2. The Fleet Bank acc


Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane

pension: Page 8904 and method of payment, the parties shall return to court for further hearing thereon. OTHER PROPERTY A. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the following: 1. 50% of the defendant's 401(k) plan; with 50% to the defendant; 2. 30% of the defendant's pension ($43,000) by means of a QDRO. The defendant shall be entitled to the remainder of his pension; 3. Her IRA and pension; 4. The 1992 Buick motor vehicle and her clothing, jewelry and personal possessions; and 5. Dining room set with six chairs and hutch. B. The defendant shall be entitled to the following, addition to the above; 1. His 1996 Cadillac motor v


Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane

401(k): llars). If the parties are unable to agree upon the time frame CT Page 8904 and method of payment, the parties shall return to court for further hearing thereon. OTHER PROPERTY A. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the following: 1. 50% of the defendant's 401(k) plan; with 50% to the defendant; 2. 30% of the defendant's pension ($43,000) by means of a QDRO. The defendant shall be entitled to the remainder of his pension; 3. Her IRA and pension; 4. The 1992 Buick motor vehicle and her clothing, jewelry and personal possessions; and 5. Dining room set with six chairs and hutch. B. The defendant shall be entitled to


Pamela McKane v. Paul McKane

valuation/division: ing the course of the marriage. The plaintiff made no contribution to its acquisition or preservation nor did the wife do anything to enhance its value. The court does not consider this asset, acquired long before the marriage of the parties, in fashioning an equitable distribution of property. The Workmen's Compensation award does, however, provide the defendant with a stream of income to be considered when fashioning an award of periodic alimony. The court has given some weight to this income. This stream of income along with the defendant's income from his employment at Cigna, enabled the defendant to provide a comfortable lifest


Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick

Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick Date: 1992-11-19. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick 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.


Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick


Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick

QDRO: shall enter on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. ALIMONY The Husband shall pay to the wife as alimony, commencing one week from the date hereof and weekly thereafter, the sum of $300.00 per week. Said alimony shall be secured by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order through the Husband's New York State Teacher's Retirement Plan. Said alimony shall terminate upon the happening of the first of the following events: a) the death of either party; b) the wife's remarriage; c) the wife's cohabitation under the statute; LIFE INSURANCE Pursuant to Stipulation of the parties: 1) The wife shall transfer to the husban


Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick

retirement benefits: The Husband shall pay to the wife as alimony, commencing one week from the date hereof and weekly thereafter, the sum of $300.00 per week. Said alimony shall be secured by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order through the Husband's New York State Teacher's Retirement Plan. Said alimony shall terminate upon the happening of the first of the following events: a) the death of either party; b) the wife's remarriage; c) the wife's cohabitation under the statute; LIFE INSURANCE Pursuant to Stipulation of the parties: 1) The wife shall transfer to the husband, the Pruco life insurance policy #R0130335, which is reflecte


Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick

pension: particular, the wife shall retain the 1980 Pontiac and the 1986 Chrysler automobiles and the husband shall retain the 1987 Dodge Truck and the 1989 Cutty Cabin boat. Each party shall keep their respective bank accounts, securities, IRA plans, and respective pension rights free and clear of any claims of the other, subject only to the Qualified Domestic Relations Order set forth above, with regard to the security arrangement for the payment of alimony. BUSINESS INTERESTS The husband shall transfer to the wife, all of his right, title and interest in and to the business known as HAYESTOWN PACKAGE (LIQUOR) STORE. The


Patricia A. Krafick v. John H. Krafick

domestic relations order: er on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. ALIMONY The Husband shall pay to the wife as alimony, commencing one week from the date hereof and weekly thereafter, the sum of $300.00 per week. Said alimony shall be secured by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order through the Husband's New York State Teacher's Retirement Plan. Said alimony shall terminate upon the happening of the first of the following events: a) the death of either party; b) the wife's remarriage; c) the wife's cohabitation under the statute; LIFE INSURANCE Pursuant to Stipulation of the parties: 1) The wife shall transfer to the husban


Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan

Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan Date: 1998-10-14. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan 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.


Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan

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.


Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan

QDRO: the defendant shall rollover all the funds in the CRM Retirement Account into the defendant's 401(k) plan at Hartford ITT. From the 401(k) plan, which should have a balance of approximately $391,000, the defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) the sum of $315,000, and the balance in said account CT Page 11614 shall be retained by the defendant. The court shall retain jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 4. The joint Nathan Lewis account shall be equally divided between the parties.


Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan

retirement benefits: shall hold the plaintiff harmless in connection with any liabilities with respect thereto, including the carrying costs and any capital gains costs. 3. In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, the defendant shall rollover all the funds in the CRM Retirement Account into the defendant's 401(k) plan at Hartford ITT. From the 401(k) plan, which should have a balance of approximately $391,000, the defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) the sum of $315,000, and the balance in said account CT Page 11614 shall be retained by the defendant. The court shall retain juri


Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan

pension: (QDRO) the sum of $315,000, and the balance in said account CT Page 11614 shall be retained by the defendant. The court shall retain jurisdiction to modify this portion of the judgment to ensure compliance with federal and/or state law relating to retirement/pension benefits. 4. The joint Nathan Lewis account shall be equally divided between the parties. 5. The defendant shall retain his Nathan Lewis IRA account. 6. The plaintiff shall retain her Nathan Lewis IRA account. 7. The defendant shall retain his entire interest in the pension plan of his current employer, the Town of Greenwich. The plaintiff shall exe


Patricia A. Morgan v. C. Robert Morgan

401(k): One Hilton Head $ 10,000. 3. Joint Nathan Lewis Account (Stipulation) $ 70,349. 4. CRM Retirement Partners IRA (Stipulation) $366,000. 5. Nathan Lewis IRA (Defendant) (Stipulation) $ 40,660. 6. Nathan Lewis IRA (Plaintiff) (Stipulation) $ 16,173. 7. 401(k) at ITT Hartford (Stipulation) $ 25,810 The following orders may enter. 1. The plaintiff shall transfer by quitclaim deed to the defendant her interest in the marital residnece located at 24 Birdsong Place, Greenwich, Connecticut. The defendant shall hold the plaintiff harmless from any and all liabilities in connection with the residence, including, wit


Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue

Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue Date: 1994-07-12. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue 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.


Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue


Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue

QDRO: ed for medical insurance continuation through the defendant's group coverage through his employer. 7. The plaintiff is awarded one-half of the present value of the husband's pension with the State of Connecticut. Plaintiff's attorney is ordered to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this order. 8. The funds held in escrow, approximately $6,000.00 are to be divided equally between the parties, provided, however, that from the husband's one-half share, the following funds shall be deducted: $300.00 to be given to the plaintiff wife as reimbursement for her medical expenses; $400.00 to the State of Connecticut for payment


Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue

pension: n savings, which was being held in a trustee account by the defendant's former attorney, and has been depleted by the defendant, with the permission of the plaintiff, to approximately $6,000.00. In addition, the defendant has a vested interest in a retirement pension from the State of Connecticut, the present value of which is approximately $10,000.00, which will provide a monthly income at the time the defendant is eligible to retire. Both parties have automobiles, the plaintiff a 1987 Nissan, the defendant a 1988 Pontiac. Each shall retain the ownership interest in the respective automobiles, and the other spouse shal


Patricia Blue v. Ernest L. Blue

domestic relations order: ical insurance continuation through the defendant's group coverage through his employer. 7. The plaintiff is awarded one-half of the present value of the husband's pension with the State of Connecticut. Plaintiff's attorney is ordered to prepare a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to effectuate this order. 8. The funds held in escrow, approximately $6,000.00 are to be divided equally between the parties, provided, however, that from the husband's one-half share, the following funds shall be deducted: $300.00 to be given to the plaintiff wife as reimbursement for her medical expenses; $400.00 to the State of Connecticut for payment


Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.

Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver. Date: 2002-10-02. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver. 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.


Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.


Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.

QDRO: he other. The parties shall sign whatever documents are required to effectuate this order within 30 days of the date of the dissolution. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide the Husband's pension with the State of Connecticut by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over this issue until the account is distributed between the parties and to resolve any disputes which may arise with regard to the preparation and execution of the QDRO. PARENTING EDUCATION CLASS The Wife has not compl


Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.

retirement benefits: UTOMOBILES Each party shall retain the automobile listed on their Financial Affidavit, free and clear of any claim by the other. The parties shall sign whatever documents are required to effectuate this order within 30 days of the date of the dissolution. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide the Husband's pension with the State of Connecticut by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over this issue until the account is distributed between the parties and to resolve an


Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.

pension: inancial Affidavit, free and clear of any claim by the other. The parties shall sign whatever documents are required to effectuate this order within 30 days of the date of the dissolution. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide the Husband's pension with the State of Connecticut by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over this issue until the account is distributed between the parties and to resolve any disputes which may arise with regard to the preparation


Patricia Carver v. Eric Carver.

domestic relations order: The parties shall sign whatever documents are required to effectuate this order within 30 days of the date of the dissolution. RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS The parties shall equally divide the Husband's pension with the State of Connecticut by means of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, if needed. The parties shall equally share the cost of preparing the necessary documents. The Superior Court shall retain jurisdiction over this issue until the account is distributed between the parties and to resolve any disputes which may arise with regard to the preparation and execution of the QDRO. PARENTING EDUCATION CLASS The Wife has not compl


Patricia Keating Durbrow v. Bruce C. Durbrow Date: 1995-04-28. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia Keating Durbrow v. Bruce C. Durbrow 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.


QDRO: o the plaintiff his one-half interest in 12,000 shares of stock in Staff Builders and his one-half interest in 200 shares of stock in Perkin Elmer. 6. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by way of a rollover into a tax free account or by way of a qualified domestic relations order whichever is required by the particular plan, the IRA Explorer Fund in the approximate amount of $16,843 as shown on defendant's CT Page 3409 financial affidavit. 7. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff $5,000.00 attorney's fees out of the proceeds of the sale of the Lakeville property or any refinancing, such payment to be secured by a mortgage with


retirement benefits: ttel 6,702 276 Pacificorp 5,279 100 Primark 1,400 750 Quaker Oats 25,781 56 Union Pacific 3,017 176 Wells Fargo 28,116 382 Westinghouse 5,444 12000 Staff Builders 45,000 Stocks (non-inherited): 220 Perkin Elmer 5,875 1,000 Staff Builders 3,750 Pension and Retirement Plans: IRA Explorer Fund $16,843; IRA Trustees Inc. Fund, $13,528; IRA Capital Growth Fund $13,528; IRA Japan Fund $9,254 58,094 850 + Lead Soldiers, inherited, $45,000; 30 + French Soldiers inh. wife possess $1,500 + 62,500 -------- Total Assets $ 533,411 The plaintiff has earning skills which may be enhanced by up-to-date educational review. She wishes to


pension: C 962 293 Mattel 6,702 276 Pacificorp 5,279 100 Primark 1,400 750 Quaker Oats 25,781 56 Union Pacific 3,017 176 Wells Fargo 28,116 382 Westinghouse 5,444 12000 Staff Builders 45,000 Stocks (non-inherited): 220 Perkin Elmer 5,875 1,000 Staff Builders 3,750 Pension and Retirement Plans: IRA Explorer Fund $16,843; IRA Trustees Inc. Fund, $13,528; IRA Capital Growth Fund $13,528; IRA Japan Fund $9,254 58,094 850 + Lead Soldiers, inherited, $45,000; 30 + French Soldiers inh. wife possess $1,500 + 62,500 -------- Total Assets $ 533,411 The plaintiff has earning skills which may be enhanced by up-to-date educational re


domestic relations order: ntiff his one-half interest in 12,000 shares of stock in Staff Builders and his one-half interest in 200 shares of stock in Perkin Elmer. 6. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff, by way of a rollover into a tax free account or by way of a qualified domestic relations order whichever is required by the particular plan, the IRA Explorer Fund in the approximate amount of $16,843 as shown on defendant's CT Page 3409 financial affidavit. 7. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff $5,000.00 attorney's fees out of the proceeds of the sale of the Lakeville property or any refinancing, such payment to be secured by a mortgage with


Patricia Mainville v. Raymond E. Mainville Date: 1996-12-04. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia Mainville v. Raymond E. Mainville 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.


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.


QDRO: f is to receive 50 percent of the present coverture portion of defendant's monthly pension earned during the years 1985 to November 27, 1996, payable to defendant on the first day of the month following his retirement. The defendant's counsel will prepare a QDRO for execution by the court to implement this order. In accordance with General Statutes § 46b-82 , the court enters the following order of permanent periodic alimony: Commencing December 6, 1996, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $185 weekly for a period of thirty-six months. Plaintiff shall receive a credit against this sum for a


pension: is a member of the Connecticut Teachers Retirement System with thirty-two years of credited service and is eligible for normal retirement at age 60 on July 1, 2002. He contemplates early retirement in approximately two years. The plaintiff does not have any pension rights other than by virtue of her marriage and has no I.R.A., life insurance, savings or investments. Her present employment provides no health, hospital or dental benefits. The plaintiff has enjoyed spousal CT Page 7356 benefits of this type by virtue of defendant's employment. The marriage has broken down irretrievably without hope of reconciliation. D


valuation/division: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] MEMORANDUM OF DECISION This matter was returned to court on January 23, 1996. The plaintiff claims a dissolution of her marriage to defendant, an CT Page 7355 equitable distribution of real and personal property, a name change and counsel fees. The parties intermarried in Meriden, Connecticut, on November 15, 1985, and separated on or about August of 1995. This was the second marriage for each of them. No children were born of this union. The plaintiff and the defendant each have adult children from their former marriages. The plaint


Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi

Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi Date: 1991-04-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi 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.


Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi


Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi

QDRO: le for the mortgage (home equity) and other costs associated with the home, and indemnify and hold the defendant harmless thereon. 5. The plaintiff is awarded twenty-five per cent of the defendant's pension. The plaintiff shall be responsible for drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to execute this order, and the court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 6. The defendant shall pay as alimony $200.00 per week until the death of either party, the plaintiff's remarriage or further order of this court. This order is subject to immediate wage withholding. 7. The plaintiff is awarded the 1982 Dodge Aries and the defendant is awarde


Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi

pension: simple interest per year. The plaintiff shall be responsible for the mortgage (home equity) and other costs associated with the home, and indemnify and hold the defendant harmless thereon. 5. The plaintiff is awarded twenty-five per cent of the defendant's pension. The plaintiff shall be responsible for drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to execute this order, and the court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 6. The defendant shall pay as alimony $200.00 per week until the death of either party, the plaintiff's remarriage or further order of this court. This order is subject to immediate wage withh


Patricia Vozzi v. John Vozzi

domestic relations order: mortgage (home equity) and other costs associated with the home, and indemnify and hold the defendant harmless thereon. 5. The plaintiff is awarded twenty-five per cent of the defendant's pension. The plaintiff shall be responsible for drafting a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to execute this order, and the court retains jurisdiction to enter this order. 6. The defendant shall pay as alimony $200.00 per week until the death of either party, the plaintiff's remarriage or further order of this court. This order is subject to immediate wage withholding. 7. The plaintiff is awarded the 1982 Dodge Aries and the defendant is awarde


Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox

Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox Citation: 659 So. 2d 1051. Extracted reporter citation: 659 So. 2d 1051. Date: 1995-01-25. Machine-draft public headnote: Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox 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.


Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox


Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox

QDRO: ly execute and deliver any and all documents necessary or desirable to effectuate the foregoing Orders. 17. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing such orders necessary or desirable to effectuate the foregoing transfers including a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Judgment shall enter in accordance herewith. DAVID L. FINEBERG, J. Superior Court Judge CT Page 389


Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox

pension: tiff at $125,000 and by Defendant at $115,000, and is subject to a mortgage in the approximate amount of $47,000. Adopting a value of $120,000 gives a present equity of approximately $73,000. Plaintiff's employment benefit plans consist of a Defined Benefit Pension Plan and a Capital Accumulation Plan, the latter also known as the 401k plan. As of January 1, 1995, the Pension Plan had a lump sum value of $103,729.63 and a value accumulated during the marriage of $96,936.24. Payments commence at age 65 retirement. Assuming present values and election of the normal 10 year guaranteed payment option, the plan would then


Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox

401(k): in the approximate amount of $47,000. Adopting a value of $120,000 gives a present equity of approximately $73,000. Plaintiff's employment benefit plans consist of a Defined Benefit Pension Plan and a Capital Accumulation Plan, the latter also known as the 401k plan. As of January 1, 1995, the Pension Plan had a lump sum value of $103,729.63 and a value accumulated during the marriage of $96,936.24. Payments commence at age 65 retirement. Assuming present values and election of the normal 10 year guaranteed payment option, the plan would then pay $2,024 per month if Plaintiff remained in employment until retiremen


Patrick F. Cox v. Maureen Cox

domestic relations order: and deliver any and all documents necessary or desirable to effectuate the foregoing Orders. 17. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction for the purpose of issuing such orders necessary or desirable to effectuate the foregoing transfers including a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Judgment shall enter in accordance herewith. DAVID L. FINEBERG, J. Superior Court Judge CT Page 389


Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach.

Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach. Date: 1991-05-20. Machine-draft public headnote: Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach. 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.


Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach.

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.


Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach.

QDRO: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER In conjunction with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order previously entered by this Court in connection with the above matter providing that the plaintiff Paul J. Roach's entire interest in the Technicon Instruments Corporation Profit Sharing Plan be transferred to Attorney Glen A. Canner, court appointed guardian ad litem for the defendant Mary F. Roach and trustee, it is further ordered as follows: 1. Attorne


Paul J. Roach v. Mary F. Roach.

domestic relations order: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ORDER In conjunction with a Qualified Domestic Relations Order previously entered by this Court in connection with the above matter providing that the plaintiff Paul J. Roach's entire interest in the Technicon Instruments Corporation Profit Sharing Plan be transferred to Attorney Glen A. Canner, court appointed guardian ad litem for the defendant Mary F. Roach and trustee, it is further ordered as follows: 1. Attorne


Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino

Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino Date: 1998-03-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino 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.


Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino

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.


Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino

QDRO: s with the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund, present value being $14,589. CT Page 3579 3. From defendant's interest in the Connecticut Laborers' Annuity fund of $23,266.00 of which $6,345 was contributed prior to the marriage. Defendant shall transfer, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the specific sum of $12,750 to a separate account in the name of and for the benefit of the plaintiff. 4. The motor vehicles possessed and used by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be their sole property and any liabilities associated with said vehicles shall be the obligation of the owner. 5. Each party is to pay the liabilities set forth on their


Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino

pension: to convey to plaintiff his interest in real property located at 5 Overvale Rd., Wolcott, CT and plaintiff will hold defendant harmless on this mortgage debt. Furniture and household effects to be the property of the plaintiff. 2. Defendant shall retain his pension benefits with the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund, present value being $14,589. CT Page 3579 3. From defendant's interest in the Connecticut Laborers' Annuity fund of $23,266.00 of which $6,345 was contributed prior to the marriage. Defendant shall transfer, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the specific sum of $12,750 to a separate account in the


Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino

domestic relations order: Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund, present value being $14,589. CT Page 3579 3. From defendant's interest in the Connecticut Laborers' Annuity fund of $23,266.00 of which $6,345 was contributed prior to the marriage. Defendant shall transfer, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, the specific sum of $12,750 to a separate account in the name of and for the benefit of the plaintiff. 4. The motor vehicles possessed and used by the plaintiff and the defendant shall be their sole property and any liabilities associated with said vehicles shall be the obligation of the owner. 5. Each party is to pay the liabilities set forth on their


Paula M. Spino v. Anthony J. Spino

valuation/division: s that cost of daycare for the minor children. An arrearage of $1000 was agreed upon and defendant is to pay $20 per week on the arrearage. ALIMONY Defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff $1 per year alimony until the youngest child reaches the age of 18. PROPERTY DIVISION 1. Defendant is to convey to plaintiff his interest in real property located at 5 Overvale Rd., Wolcott, CT and plaintiff will hold defendant harmless on this mortgage debt. Furniture and household effects to be the property of the plaintiff. 2. Defendant shall retain his pension benefits with the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund, present value being


Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall

Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall Date: 1993-12-09. Machine-draft public headnote: Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall 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.


Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall


Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall

QDRO: ue of pension benefits in the amount of $17,536.00 be equally divided between the parties so that same is available to the plaintiff at the time of retirement or when the defendant is eligible for retirement and that this order shall be in compliance with the qualified domestic relations order. 10. That the defendant pay to the plaintiff the current arrearage for temporary child support and CT Page 10668 temporary alimony which the court finds to be Eight Hundred Fifty-Five ($855.00) Dollars as of July 30, 1993, and also reimburse the plaintiff for telephone and Mastercard charges as shown in plaintiff's exhibits 4 and 5. 11. That the defenda


Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall

pension: hange in circumstances so that the plaintiff, should she become liable for any of said debts the defendant intends to discharge in bankruptcy, that alimony would be increased to protect the interest of the plaintiff. 9. That the defendant's present value of pension benefits in the amount of $17,536.00 be equally divided between the parties so that same is available to the plaintiff at the time of retirement or when the defendant is eligible for retirement and that this order shall be in compliance with the qualified domestic relations order. 10. That the defendant pay to the plaintiff the current arrearage for tempo


Peggy J. Westfall v. Robert M. Westfall

domestic relations order: ion benefits in the amount of $17,536.00 be equally divided between the parties so that same is available to the plaintiff at the time of retirement or when the defendant is eligible for retirement and that this order shall be in compliance with the qualified domestic relations order. 10. That the defendant pay to the plaintiff the current arrearage for temporary child support and CT Page 10668 temporary alimony which the court finds to be Eight Hundred Fifty-Five ($855.00) Dollars as of July 30, 1993, and also reimburse the plaintiff for telephone and Mastercard charges as shown in plaintiff's exhibits 4 and 5. 11. That the defenda


Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini

Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini Date: 1991-02-27. Machine-draft public headnote: Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini 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.


Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini

QDRO: nt, this alimony shall terminate when defendant qualifies for her share of plaintiff's pension as hereinafter provided. 5. The defendant is awarded a 40% interest in the plaintiff's pension plan and the attorney for the defendant shall prepare the necessary QDRO order. 6. The plaintiff shall have the right to acquire the defendant's interest in the family home known as 34 Shelter Hill Avenue, Watertown upon payment to her of $45,000 without adjustment to said sum. If plaintiff's source of funds is a mortgage, the defendant is ordered to cooperate in plaintiff's efforts to mortgage the premises. Upon tender of sai


Pellegrino Mancini v. Mary J. Mancini

pension: 1990 he earned $29,661 gross wages (Defendant's Exhibit #2) or $570 weekly gross wages. His financial affidavit lists $501 gross and after taxes, health and united way totaling $153, provides $348 net before deducting additional credit union item of $84 and a pension loan pay-back of $43. He testified that overtime has been cut back recently. In summary, the plaintiff worked throughout the marriage, except for periods of ill health. The defendant worked during the initial six years of the marriage until the first of the parties' three children were born. She returned to work in 1983, after a period of volunteer work,


Perreira v. Perreira. ICA mem. op., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 296. Consolidated with CAAP-20-0000038. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/01/2025. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/07/2025 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/21/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/02/2025 [ada]. Citation: SCWC-20-0000038-haw. Extracted reporter citation: SCWC-20-0000038-haw. Date: 2025-09-15. Machine-draft public headnote: Perreira v. Perreira. ICA mem. op., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 296. Consolidated with CAAP-20-0000038. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/01/2025. S.Ct. Order Dismissing Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/07/2025 [ada]. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/21/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/02/2025 [ada]. 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.


QDRO: education, and increased operational costs." S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 3205, in 2018 Senate Journal, at 1363. 10 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-397, a former spouse may request entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). The QDRO, like a HiDRO, "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to . . . receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan" provided by the participant's private employer. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). Interpreting the application of a Q


retirement benefits: lliam's ERS retirement benefit, with payments to commence at "the earliest date when [William] shall be qualified to retire." William subsequently qualified to retire on April 1, 1999. In 2008, having not received any payments for her share of William's retirement benefit, Barbara moved to enforce the original division order. In 2012, the family court granted Barbara's motion and awarded her 31% of William's pension as valued on the date which he qualified to retire. In 2017, 2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Barbara moved for further relief, alleging that William had failed to


pension: to retire on April 1, 1999. In 2008, having not received any payments for her share of William's retirement benefit, Barbara moved to enforce the original division order. In 2012, the family court granted Barbara's motion and awarded her 31% of William's pension as valued on the date which he qualified to retire. In 2017, 2 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Barbara moved for further relief, alleging that William had failed to disclose information regarding the value of his retirement benefits and further failed to make any payments pursuant to the 2012 order. In 2019, th


ERISA: a divorce action award and promptly paid." S. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 1058, in 2015 Senate Journal, at 1274. The committee further noted that the new provision would "help align [HRS] chapter 88 . . . to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act [(ERISA)]." Id. Under ERISA, by way of amendment through the Retirement Equity 3 William rejects this conclusion. He argues that, because Act 30 amending HRS § 88-93.5 "specified that the Act would take effect in the future – on July 1, 2020," the statute should be read only to apply prospectively. [App. at 7-8, SC Dkt. 1:9-11] This contention is belied by the l


Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer

Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer Citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Extracted reporter citation: DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER. Date: 1994-01-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer 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.


Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer

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.


Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer

QDRO: d as indicated by the issuing court.] DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER 1. It is acknowledged that the State of Connecticut Teachers' Retirement System is a governmental retirement system, and so is not subject to Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code regarding Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, nevertheless it does recognize valid orders of a court not inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter 167a of the Connecticut General Statutes. 2. This Domestic Relations Order (Order) assigns a portion of the benefits in the Connecticut State Teachers' Retirement System (the Plan) from Peter Meyer to Martha J. Meyer pursuant to Connecticut General Sta


Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer

retirement benefits: ments made to Martha J. Meyer. 11. While is it anticipated that the Connecticut State Teachers' Retirement System will pay directly to Martha J. Meyer the benefit awarded to her, Peter Meyer is designated a constructive trustee to the extent he receives any retirement benefits under the Plan that are due to Martha J. Meyer but paid to Peter Meyer. Peter Meyer is ordered and decreed to pay the benefit defined above directly to Martha J. Meyer within three days after receipt of him. Dated at Danbury, Connecticut on January , 1994. Socrates H. Mihalakos, Judge


Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer

alternate payee: (the Plan) from Peter Meyer to Martha J. Meyer pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 46b-81 . 3. Participant in the Plan is Peter Meyer, Plan Membership no. 070754, whose last known mailing address is P.O. Box 287, Easton, Connecticut 06612. 4. Alternate payee is Martha J. Meyer, Social Security CT Page 847 no. 570-54-9733, whose last known mailing address is 81 Stepney Road, Redding, Connecticut 06896. 5. The Connecticut State Teachers' Retirement System is hereby ordered to assign 40% of Peter Meyer's present accrued benefits as of November 12, 1993 (28.3 credited years of service) to Martha J. Meyer. Present


Peter E. Meyer v. Martha Meyer

domestic relations order: [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER 1. It is acknowledged that the State of Connecticut Teachers' Retirement System is a governmental retirement system, and so is not subject to Section 414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code regarding Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, nevertheless it does recognize valid orders of a court not inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter 167a of the Connecticut


Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell

Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell Date: 1993-01-26. Machine-draft public headnote: Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell 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.


Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell


Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell

QDRO: usband shall designate the wife as the beneficiary of his present life insurance policies in an amount necessary to fund his alimony obligation. Said amount shall be modified annually to reflect the amount of obligation still remaining. PENSION BENEFITS A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall issue granting to the wife one-half-of the husband's pension benefits as currently vested through his previous employment with American Can Company. The husband shall retain his pension benefits with his current employment. All other pension benefits including IRA's, and 401k's shall be retained by CT Page 442 the party in whose name they currently ex


Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell

pension: IFE INSURANCE The husband shall designate the wife as the beneficiary of his present life insurance policies in an amount necessary to fund his alimony obligation. Said amount shall be modified annually to reflect the amount of obligation still remaining. PENSION BENEFITS A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall issue granting to the wife one-half-of the husband's pension benefits as currently vested through his previous employment with American Can Company. The husband shall retain his pension benefits with his current employment. All other pension benefits including IRA's, and 401k's shall be retained by CT Pa


Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell

401(k): ng to the wife one-half-of the husband's pension benefits as currently vested through his previous employment with American Can Company. The husband shall retain his pension benefits with his current employment. All other pension benefits including IRA's, and 401k's shall be retained by CT Page 442 the party in whose name they currently exist. HEALTH INSURANCE The husband shall maintain for the benefit of the minor children all medical and dental insurance which is available to him through any place of employment. In the event the wife's employment also provides such insurance benefits, she shall likewise maintai


Peter J. Farrell v. Arleen F. Farrell

domestic relations order: ll designate the wife as the beneficiary of his present life insurance policies in an amount necessary to fund his alimony obligation. Said amount shall be modified annually to reflect the amount of obligation still remaining. PENSION BENEFITS A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall issue granting to the wife one-half-of the husband's pension benefits as currently vested through his previous employment with American Can Company. The husband shall retain his pension benefits with his current employment. All other pension benefits including IRA's, and 401k's shall be retained by CT Page 442 the party in whose name they currently ex


Peter S. Buttress v. Alexine J. Buttress Date: 1993-04-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Peter S. Buttress v. Alexine J. Buttress 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.


QDRO: assign to the wife one-half of his IBM pension (said sum amounting to $2,115.50 per month). In order to affect such transfer, a qualified Family Relations order is entered assigning the wife to one-half interest in said pension as described in preparation of QDRO under the IBM Retirement Plan attached hereto. The court shall retain jurisdiction until the order is approved by the pension plan administrator. 5. Upon receipt of this decision, the parties shall immediately list for sale, with Eileen Foran of the Shaker Realty Company, the marital domicile located at 16 Lampost Drive, West Redding, Connecticut, at a li


retirement benefits: work. The husband, prior to his retirement in May of 1987, worked for I.B.M. He started with the company as a clerk and rose to be director of personnel for a unit of 5,000. He directly supervised people as part of his job. When the company offered an early retirement plan, he took it. His wife was not in favor of his retiring early because she was concerned about what he would do during retirement. It was not necessary for health or any other reason for him to take an early retirement. He indicated that he thought he would like to do something else and that was one of the reasons for his retiring early. Since his retirement,


pension: d that the allegations of the complaint are true. 3. The husband is ordered to pay to the wife as lump sum alimony the sum of $10,200.00, payable over a period of five years in $170.00 per month. 4. The husband shall assign to the wife one-half of his IBM pension (said sum amounting to $2,115.50 per month). In order to affect such transfer, a qualified Family Relations order is entered assigning the wife to one-half interest in said pension as described in preparation of QDRO under the IBM Retirement Plan attached hereto. The court shall retain jurisdiction until the order is approved by the pension plan administrat


Philip Wax v. Angela Wax

Philip Wax v. Angela Wax Date: 1999-01-07. Machine-draft public headnote: Philip Wax v. Angela Wax 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.


Philip Wax v. Angela Wax


Philip Wax v. Angela Wax

QDRO: and of the defendant, the following, to wit: a. Hartford TSA; b. Royal TSA #1; c. Royal TSA #2 5. The parties shall divide the respective pensions (New York State Teachers' Retirement System and Connecticut State Teachers' Retirement System) by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, each transferring to the other a monthly benefit equal to one-half of the monthly retirement benefit as entitled as of the date of dissolution, together with any joint and survivor death benefits as of the date of dissolution. The court retains jurisdiction to effect this order. 6. Any refund of taxes to be received due to joint tax returns filed or to


Philip Wax v. Angela Wax

retirement benefits: He also has three 403(b) accounts valued at $162,628.47, two $162,628.47, two bank accounts listed at $212.99 and a coin collection valued at $750.00. The defendant lists three deferred compensation plans totaling $62,694.00, a Connecticut, State Teachers' Retirement Plan valued at $38,941.00 and bank accounts totaling $244.00. The parties have owned the marital home located at one Old Witch Court, Rowayton since December, 1986. It was purchased upon sale of their initial home known as 5 Mystic Court, Norwalk. They agree that the current fair market value is $475,000.00. It is CT Page 730 encumbered by a first mortgage bal


Philip Wax v. Angela Wax

pension: efendant's initial teaching assignments were in Yonkers and then in Port Chester until her first pregnancy. She then worked as a substitute teacher and as a tutor, working part-time in Darien as well while caring for the children. The plaintiff has a vested pension for New York State teachers which will pay him $55,581.00 annually commencing on June 4, 1999. He also has three 403(b) accounts valued at $162,628.47, two $162,628.47, two bank accounts listed at $212.99 and a coin collection valued at $750.00. The defendant lists three deferred compensation plans totaling $62,694.00, a Connecticut, State Teachers' Retir


Philip Wax v. Angela Wax

domestic relations order: defendant, the following, to wit: a. Hartford TSA; b. Royal TSA #1; c. Royal TSA #2 5. The parties shall divide the respective pensions (New York State Teachers' Retirement System and Connecticut State Teachers' Retirement System) by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, each transferring to the other a monthly benefit equal to one-half of the monthly retirement benefit as entitled as of the date of dissolution, together with any joint and survivor death benefits as of the date of dissolution. The court retains jurisdiction to effect this order. 6. Any refund of taxes to be received due to joint tax returns filed or to


Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso

Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso Date: 1993-08-11. Machine-draft public headnote: Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso 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.


Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso

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.


Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso

QDRO: as available through their employment. All unreimbursed medical and dental expenses shall be divided equally between the parties. These orders are entered subject to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 46b-84 (c). (6) The husband shall assign, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, fifty (50) percent of the value of his retirement plan at the time of his retirement. (7) The Court finds an arrearage of $1,575. This shall be paid at the rate of $10 per week. The husband shall further apply to this arrearage 50 percent of any tax refund when filing jointly or 100 percent of any tax refund when filing as a single person. He shall provi


Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso

retirement benefits: expenses shall be divided equally between the parties. These orders are entered subject to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 46b-84 (c). (6) The husband shall assign, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, fifty (50) percent of the value of his retirement plan at the time of his retirement. (7) The Court finds an arrearage of $1,575. This shall be paid at the rate of $10 per week. The husband shall further apply to this arrearage 50 percent of any tax refund when filing jointly or 100 percent of any tax refund when filing as a single person. He shall provide the wife with copies of his tax returns for so long a


Rae Del Grosso v. Charles Del Grosso

domestic relations order: le through their employment. All unreimbursed medical and dental expenses shall be divided equally between the parties. These orders are entered subject to the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes 46b-84 (c). (6) The husband shall assign, by Qualified Domestic Relations Order, fifty (50) percent of the value of his retirement plan at the time of his retirement. (7) The Court finds an arrearage of $1,575. This shall be paid at the rate of $10 per week. The husband shall further apply to this arrearage 50 percent of any tax refund when filing jointly or 100 percent of any tax refund when filing as a single person. He shall provi


Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez

Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez Date: 1996-04-22. Machine-draft public headnote: Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez 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.


Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez


Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez

QDRO: ology Corporation. The court finds that the present value of the accrued benefit to the defendant is $23,235 and that the defendant is entitled to receive an accrued benefit of $602.72 per month commencing at age 65. The court orders the defendant to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the court for its execution authorizing and recognizing the right of the plaintiff to receive a monthly benefit payment at the same time and in the same manner as payments are made to the plaintiff based upon the present value of the accrued benefit of $23,235. All payments are to be made from the pension plan vested in the defendant due from the United


Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez

pension: laintiff. The periodic payments of alimony shall be made by a wage execution. After considering the elements contained in § 46b-81 , assignment of property and transfer of title, the court assigns to the plaintiff 50 percent of the present value of the pension benefit which the defendant is entitled to receive from the United Aircraft Division of the United Technology Corporation. The court finds that the present value of the accrued benefit to the defendant is $23,235 and that the defendant is entitled to receive an accrued benefit of $602.72 per month commencing at age 65. The court orders the defendant to subm


Ramona Gonzalez v. Guillermo Gonzalez

domestic relations order: oration. The court finds that the present value of the accrued benefit to the defendant is $23,235 and that the defendant is entitled to receive an accrued benefit of $602.72 per month commencing at age 65. The court orders the defendant to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the court for its execution authorizing and recognizing the right of the plaintiff to receive a monthly benefit payment at the same time and in the same manner as payments are made to the plaintiff based upon the present value of the accrued benefit of $23,235. All payments are to be made from the pension plan vested in the defendant due from the United


Rathblott v. Rathblott

Rathblott v. Rathblott Date: 1999-01-13. Machine-draft public headnote: Rathblott v. Rathblott 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.


Rathblott v. Rathblott

Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 2/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.


Rathblott v. Rathblott

QDRO: s a fair market value of $250,000 and should be awarded to the Wife. C. The Mead Condo I has a fair market value of $135,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. D. The Mead Condo II shall be sold upon terms and conditions to be set by the court. E. By QDRO or other appropriate court order, each party should be awarded one-half of each of the following as of the date of distribution: 1. Husband's IRA 2. Baker Pension 3. Fidelity Annuity 4. Husband's 401(k). F. The Husband's business (ERC) has a fair market of $196,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. G. The Wife's Automobile has a fair market


Rathblott v. Rathblott

pension: D. The Mead Condo II shall be sold upon terms and conditions to be set by the court. E. By QDRO or other appropriate court order, each party should be awarded one-half of each of the following as of the date of distribution: 1. Husband's IRA 2. Baker Pension 3. Fidelity Annuity 4. Husband's 401(k). F. The Husband's business (ERC) has a fair market of $196,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. G. The Wife's Automobile has a fair market value of $30,000 and should be awarded to Wife. H. The Husband's Automobile has a fair market value of $7,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. I. Pursuit to t


Rathblott v. Rathblott

401(k): rms and conditions to be set by the court. E. By QDRO or other appropriate court order, each party should be awarded one-half of each of the following as of the date of distribution: 1. Husband's IRA 2. Baker Pension 3. Fidelity Annuity 4. Husband's 401(k). F. The Husband's business (ERC) has a fair market of $196,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. G. The Wife's Automobile has a fair market value of $30,000 and should be awarded to Wife. H. The Husband's Automobile has a fair market value of $7,000 and should be awarded to the Husband. I. Pursuit to the stipulation dated September 8, 1998 the p


Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing

Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing Date: 1999-10-12. Machine-draft public headnote: Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing 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.


Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing


Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing

QDRO: OMPENSATION PLANS The 401K portion of the husband's retirement account shall be CT Page 13725 equally divided between the parties. The remainder of the husband's pension plan shall be divided with 25 percent going to the wife and 75 percent to the husband. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be drafted and implemented, and the Court retains jurisdiction in connection therewith. MEDICAL INSURANCE If the wife does not have medical insurance as an incident of any employment, the husband shall cooperate with the wife to assist her in obtaining medical insurance under COBRA. The wife shall be solely responsible for the payment of the insura


Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing

retirement benefits: ould return to the Court for further orders in connection therewith. Each party shall have sole ownership of the life insurance policy listed on the respective financial affidavit. PENSION AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS The 401K portion of the husband's retirement account shall be CT Page 13725 equally divided between the parties. The remainder of the husband's pension plan shall be divided with 25 percent going to the wife and 75 percent to the husband. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order shall be drafted and implemented, and the Court retains jurisdiction in connection therewith. MEDICAL INSURANCE If the wife does not


Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing

pension: e each claim that the other party is capable of earning sufficient moneys to support himself or herself, and the wife further claims that the husband has the income to contribute to her support by way of alimony. The husband entered this marriage with prior pension benefits dating from 1987. During the period of the marriage, the benefits continued to accrue. Additionally, the husband has participated in a 401K plan only during the time of the marriage. The financial affidavits of the parties reveal and the court finds that the husband has approximately $7000 and the wife has approximately $4800 in bank accounts. Th


Renate Downing v. Kenneth E. Downing

401(k): s the income to contribute to her support by way of alimony. The husband entered this marriage with prior pension benefits dating from 1987. During the period of the marriage, the benefits continued to accrue. Additionally, the husband has participated in a 401K plan only during the time of the marriage. The financial affidavits of the parties reveal and the court finds that the husband has approximately $7000 and the wife has approximately $4800 in bank accounts. The court further finds that the wife loaned her daughter $3000 which is still owed to the wife. The wife and husband each claim that the financial a


Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre

Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre Date: 1996-09-05. Machine-draft public headnote: Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre 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.


Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre

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.


Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre

QDRO: f shall assume any liens, mortgages or encumbrances presently thereon and hold the defendant harmless for any claim thereon. (10) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 35 percent of the present value of the plaintiff's pension with NDPU, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (11) Each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. Paul M. Vasington State Referee


Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre

pension: November 15, 1996. The plaintiff shall assume any liens, mortgages or encumbrances presently thereon and hold the defendant harmless for any claim thereon. (10) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 35 percent of the present value of the plaintiff's pension with NDPU, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (11) Each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. Paul M. Vasington State Referee


Rene L. Sylvestre v. Jean M. Sylvestre

domestic relations order: sume any liens, mortgages or encumbrances presently thereon and hold the defendant harmless for any claim thereon. (10) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 35 percent of the present value of the plaintiff's pension with NDPU, by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). (11) Each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. Paul M. Vasington State Referee


Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.

Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser. Docket: FA-00-0559616S SUPERIOR. Date: 2002-07-09. Machine-draft public headnote: Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser. 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.


Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.


Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.

QDRO: he parties, both parties shall be trustees in any court-ordered resolution. The court shall retain jurisdiction over those funds in order to enforce the intent of the parties. b. MERF Retirement Plan The plaintiff shall transfer to the defendant by way of Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) 37.5% of the present value of his MERE retirement plan. Said QDRO shall be prepared by the defendant's attorney. The defendant shall be responsible for any tax consequences from such transfer. The defendant shall pay for the cost to prepare the QDRO. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure that the purpose and intent of this paragraph is carrie


Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.

retirement benefits: ibuted in accordance with the previously mentioned stipulation (Exhibit C attached). 2. PEBSCO 457K ; approximate value $42,000.00. This asset is distributed in accordance with the previously mentioned stipulation (Exhibit C attached). 3. Plaintiff's MERE retirement plan with a present value of approximately $40,200.00. The court notes that approximately 75% of this value was funded and accumulated during the marriage. 4. Defendant's Lawrence and Memorial (Invesco) 401(k) plan ; its approximate present value is $20,200.00. The court notes that this asset was entirely accumulated and funded during the marriage. 5. Defend


Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.

pension: perior Court commencing on March 27, 2002. Seven witnesses testified at trial; James Blair, a real estate appraiser; Lieutenant Daniel Nutt and Sergeant Thomas Crowell of the Waterford Police Department; George Joseph, a real estate appraiser; John Mancure, a pension valuator and the parties. From their testimony and all of the exhibits introduced at trial, the court finds the following facts. The parties were intermarried on May 27, 1987 in Groton, Connecticut. Three children are issue of the marriage; Jeffrey, born May 18, 1989; Daniel, born September 15, 1991; and Tricia, born November 17, 1995. The children requir


Richard Hauser v. Kathleen Hauser.

401(k): (Exhibit C attached). 3. Plaintiff's MERE retirement plan with a present value of approximately $40,200.00. The court notes that approximately 75% of this value was funded and accumulated during the marriage. 4. Defendant's Lawrence and Memorial (Invesco) 401(k) plan ; its approximate present value is $20,200.00. The court notes that this asset was entirely accumulated and funded during the marriage. 5. Defendant's Lincoln Financial Group 401(k) also through Lawrence and Memorial Hospital; its approximate present value is $23,000.00. The court notes that this asset was entirely accumulated and funded during the m


Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille

Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille Date: 1996-09-06. Machine-draft public headnote: Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille 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.


Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille


Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille

QDRO: e plaintiff harmless from any claims thereon. Each shall pay one half of the $300 fee for the appraisal of said property. (3) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 50 percent of the present value of the plaintiff's pension with Stop Shop by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). If defendant predeceases the plaintiff, said 50 percent shall revert to the plaintiff and he shall be the survivor beneficiary thereof. Defendant shall be the survivor CT Page 5578-XXX beneficiary on plaintiff's share of the pension. (4) The plaintiff shall keep the business known as Phil's Bait Tackle free and clear of any claims by the defendant


Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille

pension: and that when she repays the parties $28,000, title to the premises will be transferred to her. The defendant admitted that Christine has repaid $20,000 which leaves a balance of $8,000. CT Page 5578-WWW During his employment, plaintiff has contributed to a pension at Stop Shop which will provide plaintiff with $370 monthly if he retires at age 55 and $640 monthly if he retires at age 62. Defendant has, by virtue of her employment, an IRA valued at $10,651 and a T. Rowe Price funds valued at $24,412. The other marital assets of the parties will be more specifically identified in the court's orders. The court fin


Richard Lafaille v. Joan Lafaille

domestic relations order: f harmless from any claims thereon. Each shall pay one half of the $300 fee for the appraisal of said property. (3) There is assigned and vested in the defendant 50 percent of the present value of the plaintiff's pension with Stop Shop by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). If defendant predeceases the plaintiff, said 50 percent shall revert to the plaintiff and he shall be the survivor beneficiary thereof. Defendant shall be the survivor CT Page 5578-XXX beneficiary on plaintiff's share of the pension. (4) The plaintiff shall keep the business known as Phil's Bait Tackle free and clear of any claims by the defendant


Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit

Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit Date: 1993-04-23. Machine-draft public headnote: Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit 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.


Richard Pettit v. Eileen Pettit