CourtListener opinion 10806050

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.


CourtListener opinion 10806050

of courts have joined Casse in recognizing the bankruptcy

QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

QDRO: e. Factual Background1 This bankruptcy arises out of the Debtor's repeated violations of her obligations to her ex- husband under a March 2021 divorce judgment. That judgment required Mr. and Mrs. Corben to separate their retirement assets pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Because Ms. Corben's retirement assets were greater than Mr. Corben's, the judgment required her to transfer approximately $155,000 of her retirement assets to him. At the time, the balance of her retirement account was more than three times that sum. Ms. Corben chose to violate the divorce judgment's plain terms. She transferred none of her retireme


CourtListener opinion 10806050

retirement benefits: those assets and used them to pay personal obligations of her own. As a result, by the time a hearing to address her actions was held in April 2024 before Justice Ariel Chesler of New York State Supreme Court, New York County, only $59,000 remained in her retirement account. At that hearing, the Debtor admitted she had made these unauthorized withdrawals and offered no justification for having done so. At the conclusion of the April 2024 hearing, Justice Chesler entered an order directing 1 A hearing on the three motions before the Court was held on November 14, 2024. At the outset of the hearing, the Court asked the part


CourtListener opinion 10806050

domestic relations order: ual Background1 This bankruptcy arises out of the Debtor's repeated violations of her obligations to her ex- husband under a March 2021 divorce judgment. That judgment required Mr. and Mrs. Corben to separate their retirement assets pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order. Because Ms. Corben's retirement assets were greater than Mr. Corben's, the judgment required her to transfer approximately $155,000 of her retirement assets to him. At the time, the balance of her retirement account was more than three times that sum. Ms. Corben chose to violate the divorce judgment's plain terms. She transferred none of her retireme


CourtListener opinion 10806735

CourtListener opinion 10806735 Extracted reporter citation: 748 A.2d 996. Docket: AP 00-009 sep 7 2000 Fem. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10806735 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.


CourtListener opinion 10806735


CourtListener opinion 10806735

QDRO: intiff shall sign any paperwork necessary to accomplish this order within thirty days after this order becomes final." {] 1 would have had similar language if the effective date of the order was not the date of the decree. Instead, the preparation date of the QDRO was not mentioned and no inference should have been drawn that the day it was accomplished would be the date Judge French had in mind. As stated, the QDRO would have been prepared with the date of the judgment as the effective date. Thus the language used first by Judge French and then Judge Nivison is fully consistent with Austin and supports the conclusio


CourtListener opinion 10806735

pension: enneth R. Smart , Jr., ) Defendant. ) - 019 AND FILED RE mM. Page, Clerk This matter is before the Court on the appeal of a single issue remaining from the dissolved marriage of the parties. It emanates from the award to Plaintiff of an equal portion of the pension of the Defendant who is the appellant here. The actual language giving rise to the problem in the original decree (French, J.) is: "The marital portion of this pension is divided equally between the parties, including cost of living or other increases." The issue is succinctly described in the Statement filed pursuant to Rule 76F(c). Defendant seeks to red


CourtListener opinion 10806735

401(k): was for a different reason but the Law Court has now spoken. Its decree mandates a look at the agreement and a threshold determination of whether or not the agreement is ambiguous. "It is clear that the original decree sought to award Valerie one half of the 401(k) account. The court, however, erred in fixing the date of valuation as the date of the decree, rather than the date of the actual division of the asset." Id, at 999. As was the case in Austin, the order here was clear on its face but subsequent events led to questions. It awarded the Plaintiff one half of the pension account. The difference in the effective


CourtListener opinion 10806735

valuation/division: ning from the dissolved marriage of the parties. It emanates from the award to Plaintiff of an equal portion of the pension of the Defendant who is the appellant here. The actual language giving rise to the problem in the original decree (French, J.) is: "The marital portion of this pension is divided equally between the parties, including cost of living or other increases." The issue is succinctly described in the Statement filed pursuant to Rule 76F(c). Defendant seeks to reduce the gross amount to be awarded to Plaintiff by reducing the pension because some of his time was in the - reserves but more because, after his pensi


CourtListener opinion 1080819

CourtListener opinion 1080819 Extracted reporter citation: 897 S.W.2d 702. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1080819 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.


CourtListener opinion 1080819


CourtListener opinion 1080819

QDRO: 0 for textbooks. 2 Upon motion, the trial court entered an order granting a stay as to the final decree pending the outcome of this appeal with certain exceptions to include Wife's right of immediate access to one-half of Husband's 401K. The court entered a qualified domestic relations order to this effect. novo review upon the record of the trial court's findings of fact, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. As our divorce statutes address only the division of "marital" property, it is incumbent upon the trial court to first classify the parties' property as either separate or marital be


CourtListener opinion 1080819

pension: tax from the exercise of certain General Mills stock options in the amount of $47,960; awarded Husband marital property totaling approximately $247,000 to include certain General Mills' stock options ($75,593) and restricted stock options ($15,995) and his pension benefit with a present value of $139,423; ordered Wife responsible for marital debt in the amount of $13,346 and Husband responsible in the amount of $12,545; awarded custody of the minor child to Wife; ordered Husband to pay $1,027 per month in child support plus 21% of his annual bonus, less appropriate deductions for income taxes and social security,


CourtListener opinion 1080819

401(k): Wife her separate property totaling $12,990 and Husband his separate property totaling $3,915; awarded marital property to Wife totaling approximately $326,000 to include the marital residence, the General Mills Voluntary Investment Plan in Husband's name (401K) in the amount of $185,543 and the proceeds less capital gains tax from the exercise of certain General Mills stock options in the amount of $47,960; awarded Husband marital property totaling approximately $247,000 to include certain General Mills' stock options ($75,593) and restricted stock options ($15,995) and his pension benefit with a present value


CourtListener opinion 1080819

domestic relations order: books. 2 Upon motion, the trial court entered an order granting a stay as to the final decree pending the outcome of this appeal with certain exceptions to include Wife's right of immediate access to one-half of Husband's 401K. The court entered a qualified domestic relations order to this effect. novo review upon the record of the trial court's findings of fact, accompanied by a presumption of correctness, unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. As our divorce statutes address only the division of "marital" property, it is incumbent upon the trial court to first classify the parties' property as either separate or marital be


CourtListener opinion 1080869

CourtListener opinion 1080869 Extracted reporter citation: 900 S.W.2d 23. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1080869 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.


CourtListener opinion 1080869


CourtListener opinion 1080869

QDRO: iled with the court, Wife listed monthly expenses totaling $2158.961 and the marital debts totaling $13,163.87. In addition, the record indicates that Wife's attorneys' fees and litigation expenses totaled $17,865.2 Subsequently, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to implement its ruling with respect to Husband's profit sharing account with Proctor & Gamble. In the QDRO, the court awarded Husband the first $10,000 in the account and then awarded Wife $43,200, apparently to cover the marital debts as well as her attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. The record reflects that Proctor & Gamble is required


CourtListener opinion 1080869

retirement benefits: imony, with payments beginning on August 1, 1994 and continuing until Husband reaches the age of sixty-two. The trial court also awarded the marital home to Wife, making her responsible for the remaining mortgage payments. The court then ordered Husband's retirement account, credit union account, and other accounts to be divided with Wife as marital property. The trial court further ordered that Husband receive the first $10,000 out of these accounts to compensate him for his equity in the house. The joint marital debts and Wife's attorneys' fees and litigation expenses were also to be paid out of these accounts. The court


CourtListener opinion 1080869

domestic relations order: the court, Wife listed monthly expenses totaling $2158.961 and the marital debts totaling $13,163.87. In addition, the record indicates that Wife's attorneys' fees and litigation expenses totaled $17,865.2 Subsequently, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") to implement its ruling with respect to Husband's profit sharing account with Proctor & Gamble. In the QDRO, the court awarded Husband the first $10,000 in the account and then awarded Wife $43,200, apparently to cover the marital debts as well as her attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. The record reflects that Proctor & Gamble is required


CourtListener opinion 1081106

CourtListener opinion 1081106 Extracted reporter citation: 909 S.W.2d 408. Docket: of factors for the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1081106 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.


CourtListener opinion 1081106

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.


CourtListener opinion 1081106

QDRO: e one-third of Husband's non-vested pension benefits and remand this matter to the trial court so it can craft3 a new order providing Wife with one-third of Husband's non-vested pension benefits accrued as of the date of the divorce, December 8, 1995. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) of February 7, 1996, is set aside and held for naught. The entry of a new QDRO will await the court's new decree with respect to a 3 For guidance, the trial court's attention is called to our decision in Kendrick v. Kendrick, 902 S.W.2d 918 (Tenn.App. 1994). 7 division of this asset. In all other respects, the trial court's judgment is affir


CourtListener opinion 1081106

pension: lliam (Husband), age 50, on the ground of inappropriate marital conduct; divided the parties' property, awarded Wife periodic alimony in futuro of $400 per month, increasing to $600 per month after May, 1997; awarded Wife a portion of Husband's non-vested pension benefits; ordered Husband to make the parties' monthly mortgage payment through May, 1997; directed Husband to pay for Wife's health insurance for 36 months through his employer's group health plan pursuant to the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA health insurance coverage); and granted other relief not germane to this appe


CourtListener opinion 1081106

domestic relations order: d of Husband's non-vested pension benefits and remand this matter to the trial court so it can craft3 a new order providing Wife with one-third of Husband's non-vested pension benefits accrued as of the date of the divorce, December 8, 1995. The Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) of February 7, 1996, is set aside and held for naught. The entry of a new QDRO will await the court's new decree with respect to a 3 For guidance, the trial court's attention is called to our decision in Kendrick v. Kendrick, 902 S.W.2d 918 (Tenn.App. 1994). 7 division of this asset. In all other respects, the trial court's judgment is affir


CourtListener opinion 10812033

CourtListener opinion 10812033 Extracted case name: COMBINED ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. MELISSA MONTEJANO. Extracted reporter citation: 8 A.3d 646. Docket: BCD-CV-2020-07 CUMBERLAND. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10812033 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.


CourtListener opinion 10812033

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.


CourtListener opinion 10812033

QDRO: call Brooks's employer to make sure that Brooks named Herrick as the beneficiary of Brooks's life insurance policy. (Demers S.M.F. ¶ 23; B&C S.M.F. ¶ 20.) Pursuant to the judgment, Brooks's Attorney was required to prepare and present the Court with two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") in order to effectuate the Court's award of 50% of Brooks's Thrift Savings Plan ("TSP") and 50% of Brooks's Federal Employee Retirement System Account ("FERS Account") to Herrick. (Demers S.M.F. ¶¶ 14-15.) Brooks's attorney failed to do this. (Demers S.M.F. ¶ 31.) Instead, Demers prepared the QDROs and mailed them to the Court on August 8, 20


CourtListener opinion 10812033

domestic relations order: ks's employer to make sure that Brooks named Herrick as the beneficiary of Brooks's life insurance policy. (Demers S.M.F. ¶ 23; B&C S.M.F. ¶ 20.) Pursuant to the judgment, Brooks's Attorney was required to prepare and present the Court with two Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDROs") in order to effectuate the Court's award of 50% of Brooks's Thrift Savings Plan ("TSP") and 50% of Brooks's Federal Employee Retirement System Account ("FERS Account") to Herrick. (Demers S.M.F. ¶¶ 14-15.) Brooks's attorney failed to do this. (Demers S.M.F. ¶ 31.) Instead, Demers prepared the QDROs and mailed them to the Court on August 8, 20


CourtListener opinion 10813440

CourtListener opinion 10813440 Extracted reporter citation: 121 N.E.3d 564. Docket: 24A-DN-1174. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10813440 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.


CourtListener opinion 10813440


CourtListener opinion 10813440

QDRO: as concur. Robb, Senior Judge. Statement of the Case [1] Alma Wilkerson appeals the trial court's denial of her motion to correct error that challenged the court's ruling on her motion for relief from judgment concerning her receipt of funds through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). Finding no error, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] The marriage of Alma Wilkerson and James Egan, Jr. was dissolved in May 2023. As part of the division of the marital estate, the court awarded Alma a portion of James' National Electrical Annuity Plan (NEAP) and ordered that she receive her share via a QDRO. Once the QDRO was su


CourtListener opinion 10813440

retirement benefits: of the court's intent is not the language of the court's decree but rather the language of the QDRO drafted by her attorney. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 26 (QDRO, ¶ 5). The decree merely states: The Court awards Wife $95,122.26 of Husband's NEAP retirement account and awards Husband the remaining value of this account. The Court Orders that Wife shall be awarded her share of this account by a qualified domestic relations order. The Court Orders Wife's attorney to submit such a qualified domestic relations order for the Court's consideration. Id. at 19 (Decree of Dissolution, ¶ 13). Indeed, in its order denying


CourtListener opinion 10813440

pension: e court's order in the decree can be accomplished, just not on the timeline that Alma desires. Contra Parham, 855 N.E.2d 722 (concluding that court did not err when it granted relief from judgment where court's decree ordered distribution of husband's pension under terms not permitted by pension plan and was thus legally impossible to carry out as court had ordered). [11] Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Alma demonstrated a meritorious claim, she is not entitled to relief under Rule 60(B)(8) because she did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that resulted from something other tha


CourtListener opinion 10813440

alternate payee: Vol. 2, p. 29 (Motion for Relief from Judgment, ¶¶ 6, 7). In support of this argument, Alma cites to this language: 1 The timing of Alma's motion is not at issue. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DN-1174 | February 27, 2025 Page 4 of 7 The Alternate Payee may receive Ninety-Five Thousand One Hundred Twenty Two Dollars and Twenty Six Cents ($95,122.26) of the Participant's account immediately. See Appellant's Br. p. 10; see also Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 29 (Motion for Relief from Judgment, ¶ 7). [9] However, the language Alma cites as proof of the court's intent is not the language of the court's


CourtListener opinion 10814400

CourtListener opinion 10814400 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10814400 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.


CourtListener opinion 10814400


CourtListener opinion 10814400

QDRO: ange of beneficiary forms. On June 25, 2008, he submitted the last beneficiary form received by the Board which named his then wife Kelly Reed as his sole beneficiary. Mr. Reed and Kelly Reed finalized their divorce on August 16, 2010. On August 17, 2010, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") was entered which set out the specifics of a property settlement agreement and granted Kelly Reed 38% of Mr. Reed's TRS retirement benefits. On June 25, 2016, Mr. Reed married Petitioner Renee Reed. Mr. 1 Mrs. Reed is represented by Stephen F. Gandee, Esq., and Lindsay M. Stollings, Esq. The Board is represented by J. Jeaneen Legato, Esq. 1 R


CourtListener opinion 10814400

retirement benefits: ry. Mr. Reed and Kelly Reed finalized their divorce on August 16, 2010. On August 17, 2010, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") was entered which set out the specifics of a property settlement agreement and granted Kelly Reed 38% of Mr. Reed's TRS retirement benefits. On June 25, 2016, Mr. Reed married Petitioner Renee Reed. Mr. 1 Mrs. Reed is represented by Stephen F. Gandee, Esq., and Lindsay M. Stollings, Esq. The Board is represented by J. Jeaneen Legato, Esq. 1 Reed passed away on January 11, 2023. At the time of his death, he was fifty-seven years old, had twenty-seven and a half years of service credit in


CourtListener opinion 10814400

domestic relations order: neficiary forms. On June 25, 2008, he submitted the last beneficiary form received by the Board which named his then wife Kelly Reed as his sole beneficiary. Mr. Reed and Kelly Reed finalized their divorce on August 16, 2010. On August 17, 2010, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") was entered which set out the specifics of a property settlement agreement and granted Kelly Reed 38% of Mr. Reed's TRS retirement benefits. On June 25, 2016, Mr. Reed married Petitioner Renee Reed. Mr. 1 Mrs. Reed is represented by Stephen F. Gandee, Esq., and Lindsay M. Stollings, Esq. The Board is represented by J. Jeaneen Legato, Esq. 1 R


CourtListener opinion 10814400

survivor benefits: nder the provisions of this article shall be paid as follows: (1) If the contributor was at least fifty years old and if his or her total service as a teacher or nonteaching member was at least twenty-five years at the time of his or her death, then the surviving spouse of the deceased, provided the spouse is designated as the sole primary refund beneficiary, is eligible for an annuity computed as though the deceased were actually a retirant at the time of death and had selected a survivorship option which pays the spouse the same monthly amount which would have been received by the deceased; or (2) If the facts do


CourtListener opinion 10815766

CourtListener opinion 10815766 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10815766 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.


CourtListener opinion 10815766


CourtListener opinion 10815766

domestic relations order: hio Feb. 28, 2019) (concluding the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevented the court from overturning a state court's civil protection order); Dunina v. Hein, No. 3:06-cv-383, 2007 WL 496355, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 12, 2007) (declining to overturn a state court's domestic relations order under Rooker-Feldman). More still, Defendants enjoy immunity. Judicial immunity is absolute; it shields judges and other public officers not only from monetary damages but from suit entirely. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991); see also Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 806 (1982) (explaining judicial immunity exists to protect judges "from undue


CourtListener opinion 1081611

CourtListener opinion 1081611 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1081611 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.


CourtListener opinion 1081611

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.


CourtListener opinion 1081611

QDRO: Account..............................$240,272.92 TIAA Retirement Account..................................$87,106.47 Aetna tax-deferred annuity................................$34,039.61 Holden Group tax-deferred annuity...................$21,444.77 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered in accordance with the above decree and forwarded to the administrators of the state pension and retirement plans. Upon receipt of the QDRO, however, counsel for the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System forwarded a letter to wife explaining that at least one of the retirement accounts was not subject to division and award pursuant


CourtListener opinion 1081611

retirement benefits: rties' equity in the marital residence, and 40% of the amounts contained in husband's retirement and pension accounts. Husband is a teacher at the University of Tennessee. As an employee of the State of Tennessee, husband participates in state pension and retirement plans. As of December 1992, the values of his retirement and pension accounts were as follows: CREF Retirement Account..............................$240,272.92 TIAA Retirement Account..................................$87,106.47 Aetna tax-deferred annuity................................$34,039.61 Holden Group tax-deferred annuity...................$21,44


CourtListener opinion 1081611

pension: orney for Appellee AFFIRMED ALAN E. HIGHERS, J. CONCUR: DAVID R. FARMER, J. HOLLY KIRBY LILLARD, J. In this post-divorce proceeding, Kafait U. Malik ("husband") appeals from the trial court's judgment ordering him to cash out and/or borrow against his pension and retirement funds in order to satisfy the court's prior distribution of marital property to Susan K. Malik ("wife"). In 1993, the Chancery Court of Shelby County entered a Final Decree of Divorce awarding a divorce to both parties on grounds of inappropriate marital conduct. The final decree awarded wife $750.00 a month for 60 months as rehabilitat


CourtListener opinion 1081611

domestic relations order: ............................$240,272.92 TIAA Retirement Account..................................$87,106.47 Aetna tax-deferred annuity................................$34,039.61 Holden Group tax-deferred annuity...................$21,444.77 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered in accordance with the above decree and forwarded to the administrators of the state pension and retirement plans. Upon receipt of the QDRO, however, counsel for the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System forwarded a letter to wife explaining that at least one of the retirement accounts was not subject to division and award pursuant


CourtListener opinion 10819704

CourtListener opinion 10819704 Docket: 7-24-09 First Assignment of Error The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10819704 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.


CourtListener opinion 10819704


CourtListener opinion 10819704

QDRO: el points in his hotel loyalty program accounts. {¶28} Ashley was awarded a marital portion of Patrick's pension, based on the time period from May 26, 2023, when the parties were married, until December 5, 2023, when the divorce action was filed, with a qualified domestic relations order to be prepared to effectuate that order. {¶29} With regard to Patrick's personal checking account, the trial court determined that Ashley was entitled to $11,620.28, being one half of the $23,240.56 1 Following the completion of the divorce hearing but prior to the final judgment entered on August 5, 2024, the trial court issued a temporary order to t


CourtListener opinion 10819704

retirement benefits: to, income derived from property divided, disbursed, or distributed under section 3105.171 of the Revised Code; (b) The relative earning abilities of the parties; (c) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the parties; (d) The retirement benefits of the parties; (e) The duration of the marriage; -24- Case No. 7-24-09 (f) The extent to which it would be inappropriate for a party, because that party will be custodian of a minor child of the marriage, to seek employment outside the home; (g) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage; (h) The relative extent of


CourtListener opinion 10819704

pension: Escalade, which was not -6- Case No. 7-24-09 specified at the hearing, Patrick testified that he was "upside down" on that vehicle, meaning he owed more on the vehicle than it was worth at that time. {¶13} As to assets, Patrick testified that he has a pension plan through his union, stemming from his job with Miller Brothers. His pension statements reflected $75,202.77 in total lifetime contributions at the end of 2023, and that amount had grown to $80,864.29 by the end of 2024. Patrick also has three hotel loyalty accounts in his name with substantial point balances, resulting from the travel required by h


CourtListener opinion 10819704

domestic relations order: in his hotel loyalty program accounts. {¶28} Ashley was awarded a marital portion of Patrick's pension, based on the time period from May 26, 2023, when the parties were married, until December 5, 2023, when the divorce action was filed, with a qualified domestic relations order to be prepared to effectuate that order. {¶29} With regard to Patrick's personal checking account, the trial court determined that Ashley was entitled to $11,620.28, being one half of the $23,240.56 1 Following the completion of the divorce hearing but prior to the final judgment entered on August 5, 2024, the trial court issued a temporary order to t


CourtListener opinion 10823518

CourtListener opinion 10823518 Extracted case name: MR KAREN RODRIGUEZ APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE DENISE D. BROWN. Extracted reporter citation: 707 S.W.2d 794. Docket: 2023-CA-1294-MR KAREN RODRIGUEZ APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10823518 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.


CourtListener opinion 10823518


CourtListener opinion 10823518

QDRO: unds in the [401(k)], and all other retirement accounts in his name, free and clear from any and all claim by Karen. There are no other retirement plans. The parties agree to engage Tacasha Thomas to draft and file the Qualified Domestic Relations Order [QDRO] and they shall equally divide the cost of her services. (R. at 250-51.) Notably, no precise amounts of any of the assets or debts divided are included in the MSA or the Decree of Dissolution.3 Pursuant to the terms of 2 This $125,000 line of credit was obtained during the marriage. (R. at 316.) As of October 8, 2018, the amount of credit accrued on th


CourtListener opinion 10823518

retirement benefits: this matter as an appeal of the October 4, 2023 order denying Karen's requested relief under CR 60.02 only. See Mingey v. Cline Leasing Serv., Inc., The motions concerned the division and assignment of a portion of Appellee's, Rodrigo Rodriguez's (Rodrigo), retirement accounts, a parcel of real property (Brownsboro property), and a debt associated with the Brownsboro property. After careful review of the record on appeal, the briefs filed, and the relevant law, we affirm. BACKGROUND The parties were married on August 15, 1995, and separated in September 2020. Both parties acquired significant marital assets during the m


CourtListener opinion 10823518

401(k): . Both parties acquired significant marital assets during the marriage. Rodrigo filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on January 27, 2021. At the time he filed his Preliminary Verified Disclosure Statement (PVDS) in June 2021, Rodrigo had a Fidelity 401(k) (the 401(k)) containing approximately $272,000. (Record, ("R") at 32.) The parties attended mediation on April 18, 2023, and the result was the April 28, 2023 MSA which was accepted by the court and incorporated into the Decree of Dissolution entered on May 1, 2023. (R. at 248, 259.) At the core of the dispute in this case are the following terms of the


CourtListener opinion 10824232

CourtListener opinion 10824232 Extracted reporter citation: 773 N.E.2d 516. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10824232 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.


CourtListener opinion 10824232


CourtListener opinion 10824232

QDRO: s in the State Teacher's Retirement System. Further, the parties acknowledge that due to the applicable provisions of the Ohio Revised Code, that the parties are unable to divide the Husband's State Teachers Retirement Benefits pursuant to an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order or another appropriate Court Order. Further, the parties acknowledge that as of June 30, 1997, the Husband is entitled to receive a monthly benefit from the State Teacher's Retirement System in the amount of Three Thousand Five Hundred Thirty–Five Dollars ($3,535.00). The Wife shall be entitled to receive from the Husband's benefits from the State Te


CourtListener opinion 10824232

retirement benefits: e to designate her a 25 percent beneficiary of his PERS survivor benefits. Appellant asserted that the parties' separation agreement and dissolution decree ordered the division of PERS benefits as follows: The parties hereto are aware of the pension and retirement benefits available to Robert Duane Plymale and the disparity between such benefits and the lack of retirement benefits available to Sally Ann Plymale and hereby agree that at the time Robert Duane Plymale commences receipt of such benefits, Sally Ann Plymale shall be deemed the vested owner of twenty-five percent (25%) of such benefits and shall be paid a sum


CourtListener opinion 10824232

pension: quired Plymale to designate her a 25 percent beneficiary of his PERS survivor benefits. Appellant asserted that the parties' separation agreement and dissolution decree ordered the division of PERS benefits as follows: The parties hereto are aware of the pension and retirement benefits available to Robert Duane Plymale and the disparity between such benefits and the lack of retirement benefits available to Sally Ann Plymale and hereby agree that at the time Robert Duane Plymale commences receipt of such benefits, Sally Ann Plymale shall be deemed the vested owner of twenty-five percent (25%) of such benefits


CourtListener opinion 10824232

alternate payee: ree and separation agreement were filed, Ohio law was amended to allow courts to issue DOPOs that can divide public retirement benefits. As was noted in Romans[ v. Romans, 2006-Ohio-6554 (9th Dist.)], DOPOs are limited to retirement benefits, because the alternate payee's rights to benefits terminate under R.C. 3105.86 upon the death of the pension participant or the alternate payee, whichever occurs first. 2006-Ohio-6554, at ¶ 13. Bargained-for survivorship benefits may be received, however, not through direct payments by the public retirement fund, but through a constructive trust equitably imposed on property in


CourtListener opinion 10826127

CourtListener opinion 10826127 Extracted reporter citation: 980 F.3d 231. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10826127 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.


CourtListener opinion 10826127

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.


CourtListener opinion 10826127

QDRO: death benefit will automatically be revoked, and the spouse shall cease to be eligible to receive a death benefit in case of any subsequent death of the Participant, if and when that spouse is divorced, except to the extent ordered to the contrary by a qualified domestic relations order. Verizon Pension Plan 71. Nick elected his then-wife, Parthena, as his primary beneficiary on January 29, 2001. They were divorced on February 14, 2017, prior to Nick's death. And Nick never re-designated Parthena—or anyone else—as beneficiary following the divorce. Therefore, by way of section 7.3(c), unless there existed a qualified domestic relation


CourtListener opinion 10826127

pension: RACHEL P. KOVNER, United States District Judge: In this interpleader action, plaintiff The Verizon Employee Benefits Committee seeks a declaratory judgment clarifying the interest that each defendant has in the death benefit payment of Nick Nikolaros's pension plan. The three claimant-defendants are Nick Nikolaros's estate, represented by its personal representative Athina Nikolaros; Nick's ex-wife, Parthena Nikolaros; and Nick's sister, Georgia Nikolaros. In cross-motions for summary judgment, Georgia seeks a declaration that the death benefit is payable solely to her, while Athina and Parthena argue that it


CourtListener opinion 10826127

ERISA: t party's favor. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986). DISCUSSION This interpleader action arises under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B), and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22. See Metro. Life Ins. v. Bigelow, 283 F.3d 436, 439–40 (2d Cir 2002). This Court has federal subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. at 440. I. Georgia Nikolaros Is Not a Valid Beneficiary. Georgia Nikolaros's motion for summary judgme


CourtListener opinion 10826127

alternate payee: 7.3(c), unless there existed a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") stating otherwise, the divorce automatically revoked Nick's election of Parthena as his primary beneficiary for his death benefit. A QDRO "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to, receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a plan." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i)(I). An "alternate payee" is "any spouse, former spouse, child, or other dependent of a participant who is recognized by a domestic relations order as having a right to recei


CourtListener opinion 10829349

CourtListener opinion 10829349 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of MELISSA and RYAN HOSMAN. MELISSA SMITH. Extracted reporter citation: 21 Cal.3d 779. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10829349 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.


CourtListener opinion 10829349


CourtListener opinion 10829349

QDRO: , with the court reserving the issue. According to the minute order of the November 14, 2018 hearing, the matter was continued to February 11, 2019, as the parties, who were present at the hearing with their attorneys, requested time to finalize a stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). The minute order states the parties agreed Hosman's disability benefits through CalPERS are his sole and separate property. Hosman's attorney prepared findings and order after hearing, which the family court signed and filed on December 14, 2018 (the 2018 order). The 2018 order states: "[Hosman]'s Disability Benefits. The parties agree and the Cour


CourtListener opinion 10829349

retirement benefits: Catherine E. Bennett and Patricia R. Di Pasquale for Respondent. -ooOoo- Melissa Smith appeals the family court's August 7, 2023 order denying her request to set aside a December 2018 order that designated her ex-husband Ryan Hosman's industrial disability retirement benefits as his separate property. On August 18, 2023, Smith filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 7, 2023 order, which the family court denied on November 1, 2023. She did not file a notice of appeal from the August 7, 2023 order until November 9, 2023, more than 60 days after she was served with notice of entry of the order. We reject Hosman's argume


CourtListener opinion 10829349

pension: enefits. A judgment of dissolution was entered on July 23, 2013 (the 2013 judgment). The 2013 judgment contained a clause which stated that Smith "shall receive her one half community interest in [Hosman]'s retir[e]ment with the State of California (CALPERS, Pension, 401k's, medical retir[e]ment, disability retirement etc), with the court retaining jurisdiction over this matter." The 2018 Order Confirming Hosman's Disability Benefits as his Separate Property In March 2018, Smith gave the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) notice of a community property claim in Hosman's disability benefits and pr


CourtListener opinion 10829349

401(k): A judgment of dissolution was entered on July 23, 2013 (the 2013 judgment). The 2013 judgment contained a clause which stated that Smith "shall receive her one half community interest in [Hosman]'s retir[e]ment with the State of California (CALPERS, Pension, 401k's, medical retir[e]ment, disability retirement etc), with the court retaining jurisdiction over this matter." The 2018 Order Confirming Hosman's Disability Benefits as his Separate Property In March 2018, Smith gave the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) notice of a community property claim in Hosman's disability benefits and proposed


CourtListener opinion 10829443

CourtListener opinion 10829443 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: notes from the judge who presided over the divorce. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10829443 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.


CourtListener opinion 10829443


CourtListener opinion 10829443

QDRO: ustice Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice Delivered and Filed: March 19, 2025 AFFIRMED Appellant Curtis Tyrone Williams ("Curtis") appeals the trial court's post-divorce qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") awarding his former spouse, appellee Larmetrice Nunnally- Williams ("Larmetrice"), one-half of his military retirement that was earned until the date of divorce. On appeal, Curtis argues the trial court erroneously awarded Larmetrice a portion of the retirement benefits that were his separate property because it was earned prior to the marriage. On th


CourtListener opinion 10829443

retirement benefits: DRO") awarding his former spouse, appellee Larmetrice Nunnally- Williams ("Larmetrice"), one-half of his military retirement that was earned until the date of divorce. On appeal, Curtis argues the trial court erroneously awarded Larmetrice a portion of the retirement benefits that were his separate property because it was earned prior to the marriage. On this record, we affirm. 04-23-00110-CV BACKGROUND According to Curtis, he served in the military prior to his marriage to Larmetrice and continued to serve after they were divorced. Although the record does not contain the final divorce decree, the record reflects Curti


CourtListener opinion 10829443

pension: illiams's sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued [or] unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, thrift-saving plan, retirement plan Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee saving plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits exi[s]ting by reason of Curtis T. Williams's employment [with the] United States Army. As of March 19, 2017 that portion being Eight [T]housand Four Hundred Seventy dollars and Fifty-Seven cents ($8,470.57) of the related benef


CourtListener opinion 10829443

401(k): ed, accrued [or] unaccrued, vested or otherwise, together with all increases thereof, the proceeds therefrom, and any other rights related to any profit-sharing plan, thrift-saving plan, retirement plan Keogh plan, pension plan, employee stock option plan, 401(k) plan, employee saving plan, accrued unpaid bonuses, disability plan, or other benefits exi[s]ting by reason of Curtis T. Williams's employment [with the] United States Army. As of March 19, 2017 that portion being Eight [T]housand Four Hundred Seventy dollars and Fifty-Seven cents ($8,470.57) of the related benefits earned during the marriage. 1 Beca


CourtListener opinion 10830111

CourtListener opinion 10830111 Extracted case name: SCOTT v. SCOTT. Docket: 1 CA-CV 24-0698 FC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10830111 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.


CourtListener opinion 10830111


CourtListener opinion 10830111

QDRO: ied in May 1990. Husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage in May 1999. The parties reached a settlement agreement (the "Agreement") which, among other things, awarded Wife one-half of Husband's public service employment retirement account "pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order" to be entered later. The Agreement stated it was expressly incorporated in the consent decree, but not merged, and the court incorporated it in its March 2000 consent decree dissolving the marriage. ¶3 In April 2024, Wife filed a petition for post-decree relief asking the court to enter a domestic relations order ("DRO") enforcing her one-half interest in


CourtListener opinion 10830111

retirement benefits: , and the court incorporated it in its March 2000 consent decree dissolving the marriage. ¶3 In April 2024, Wife filed a petition for post-decree relief asking the court to enter a domestic relations order ("DRO") enforcing her one-half interest in Husband's retirement account. Wife noted she first presented a draft DRO to Husband requesting stipulated entry, but he failed to respond, which led to her petition. Husband moved to dismiss, which the court granted, noting it "lacks jurisdiction to take action as requested by [Wife]" because the DRO was part of the separate settlement agreement the parties reached, and was therefore n


CourtListener opinion 10830111

domestic relations order: 1990. Husband petitioned for dissolution of marriage in May 1999. The parties reached a settlement agreement (the "Agreement") which, among other things, awarded Wife one-half of Husband's public service employment retirement account "pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order" to be entered later. The Agreement stated it was expressly incorporated in the consent decree, but not merged, and the court incorporated it in its March 2000 consent decree dissolving the marriage. ¶3 In April 2024, Wife filed a petition for post-decree relief asking the court to enter a domestic relations order ("DRO") enforcing her one-half interest in


CourtListener opinion 10831125

CourtListener opinion 10831125 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10831125 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.


CourtListener opinion 10831125

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.


CourtListener opinion 10831125

QDRO: ach, Florida. He has a city pension benefit the terms of which have not been provided to the Court. The court would equally divide this pension; however, the Court has no information as to the term of the pension. The Court retains jurisdiction to enter a QDRO or other documentation dividing this pension as and when payable. E. The court reserves jurisdiction to modify and enforce this final judgment. (Emphasis added). Complicating this matter on appeal is the fact no transcript of the final dissolution hearing is contained in the record. In cases where a transcript is unavailable, Florida Rule of Appellat


CourtListener opinion 10831125

pension: , C.J. Appellant Donald Lloyd Edman ("Husband") timely appeals the trial court's final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which granted permanent alimony to appellee Carlene Edman ("Wife") and retained jurisdiction for the trial court to address Husband's pension. On appeal, Husband claims: (1) the trial court's permanent alimony award was contrary to law because section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2023), ended permanent alimony awards; (2) the trial court failed to make specific factual findings pursuant to section 61.08 as to Wife's need and Husband's ability to pay alimony; and (3) the trial court improperly awarded


CourtListener opinion 10831125

valuation/division: d the lack of transcripts from those hearings, the circuit court, in its discretion, may: (1) take additional evidence and conduct further proceedings to enable the circuit court to make the statutorily required findings; and (2) amend and/or update its prior equitable distribution determination in light of any additional evidence presented."). Husband also argues that the trial court erred in awarding Wife 50% of Husband's retirement pension with the permanent alimony award because the trial court could not "double-dip and award both." Husband asserts that alimony should terminate when he retires if Wife is to receive 50% of Husban


CourtListener opinion 10833355

CourtListener opinion 10833355 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10833355 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.


CourtListener opinion 10833355


CourtListener opinion 10833355

QDRO: 1.4 by failing to respond in a timely manner to the client's communications about the case.2 In July 2014, Briley-Holmes represented the third client in divorce proceedings. Under the final judgment and decree of divorce, Briley-Holmes was to complete a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the ex- husband's 401 (k) account to be awarded to the client within 60 days. Briley- Holmes did not know how to prepare a QDRO and got assistance from opposing counsel. Briley-Holmes drafted a QDRO but did not timely forward it to her client or to opposing counsel. She then failed to respond to her client's e-mails 2 Rule 1.4 says, "A law


CourtListener opinion 10833355

401(k): munications about the case.2 In July 2014, Briley-Holmes represented the third client in divorce proceedings. Under the final judgment and decree of divorce, Briley-Holmes was to complete a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the ex- husband's 401 (k) account to be awarded to the client within 60 days. Briley- Holmes did not know how to prepare a QDRO and got assistance from opposing counsel. Briley-Holmes drafted a QDRO but did not timely forward it to her client or to opposing counsel. She then failed to respond to her client's e-mails 2 Rule 1.4 says, "A lawyer shall . . . keep the client reason


CourtListener opinion 10833355

domestic relations order: iling to respond in a timely manner to the client's communications about the case.2 In July 2014, Briley-Holmes represented the third client in divorce proceedings. Under the final judgment and decree of divorce, Briley-Holmes was to complete a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) for the ex- husband's 401 (k) account to be awarded to the client within 60 days. Briley- Holmes did not know how to prepare a QDRO and got assistance from opposing counsel. Briley-Holmes drafted a QDRO but did not timely forward it to her client or to opposing counsel. She then failed to respond to her client's e-mails 2 Rule 1.4 says, "A law


CourtListener opinion 10834674

CourtListener opinion 10834674 Extracted case name: MR MI HUI CHON SALYER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE GEORGE DAVIS. Extracted reporter citation: 495 S.W.2d 175. Docket: 2024-CA-0623-MR MI HUI CHON SALYER APPELLANT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10834674 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.


CourtListener opinion 10834674


CourtListener opinion 10834674

QDRO: atterfield v. Satterfield, 608 S.W.3d 171, 175 (Ky. App. 2020) (finding the wife's claim 20 years after final dissolution was not unreasonably delayed, because she "had no reason to inquire into" her ex-husband's failure to execute his duty, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, "until such time as" that duty could be executed); see also Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 297 S.W.3d 878 (Ky. App. 2009) (after interpretation issues pertaining to the court's division of retirement benefits came into question, this Court permitted the husband to challenge the language of -11- the decree approximately six years after it reached finality be


CourtListener opinion 10834674

retirement benefits: sked for that payment to be reinstated. She argued that in 2008 he admitted she was entitled to one-half of that benefit, and he should be held to that original acknowledgement. Conversely, Clinton argued that any remaining interest she had in his military retirement benefits was offset by the marital assets she improperly dissipated after the dissolution. He requested the court deny Mi Hui's request, or in the alternative, proceed with a full distribution of marital assets, including an accounting of funds Mi Hui dissipated after the dissolution, and an award for child support.2 2 Clinton and Mi Hui had two children duri


CourtListener opinion 10834674

domestic relations order: v. Satterfield, 608 S.W.3d 171, 175 (Ky. App. 2020) (finding the wife's claim 20 years after final dissolution was not unreasonably delayed, because she "had no reason to inquire into" her ex-husband's failure to execute his duty, pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, "until such time as" that duty could be executed); see also Snodgrass v. Snodgrass, 297 S.W.3d 878 (Ky. App. 2009) (after interpretation issues pertaining to the court's division of retirement benefits came into question, this Court permitted the husband to challenge the language of -11- the decree approximately six years after it reached finality be


CourtListener opinion 10839571

CourtListener opinion 10839571 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of ROD ALAN and HUB ALAN FREEMAN. ROD ALAN FREEMAN. Extracted reporter citation: 103 Cal.App.4th 1409. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10839571 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.


CourtListener opinion 10839571


CourtListener opinion 10839571

QDRO: mined the community's interest in this pension at the time it awarded spousal support. Specifically, it states that the parties had stipulated that the community's interest in "all retirement accounts" would be divided by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The court ordered the parties to meet and confer as to the accounts subject to the QDRO, and it appointed a third party to prepare the QDRO. 7 may fix spousal support at an amount greater than, equal to or less than what the supported spouse may require to maintain the marital standard of living, in order to achieve a just and reasonable result under t


CourtListener opinion 10839571

retirement benefits: ion. Rather, the statement of decision indicates the family court had not determined the community's interest in this pension at the time it awarded spousal support. Specifically, it states that the parties had stipulated that the community's interest in "all retirement accounts" would be divided by a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). The court ordered the parties to meet and confer as to the accounts subject to the QDRO, and it appointed a third party to prepare the QDRO. 7 may fix spousal support at an amount greater than, equal to or less than what the supported spouse may require to maintain the marital standard of


CourtListener opinion 10839571

pension: 0. Hub arrives at this $9,300 figure by adding together (1) $5,400, which is the amount the family court found Rod was able to earn; (2) $1,000, which is Rod's monthly income from dividends; (3) $800, which is Rod's purported community share of Hub's military pension; and (4) $2,100, which is the amount of spousal support.5 Hub argues that spousal support should be reduced, or eliminated, so that Rod's total monthly income will be closer to half the marital standard of living (i.e., $6,190.50). We disagree. To begin, Hub cites no authority for his assertion that Rod is only entitled to half the marital standard of livi


CourtListener opinion 10839571

valuation/division: e final day of trial. We are unpersuaded by either argument. Hub's remaining contention appears to arise from a misunderstanding of the Moore/Marsden rule.2 Under this rule, "the community acquires a pro tanto interest" in a party's separate property "[w]hen community property is used to reduce the principal balance of a mortgage on" the property. (Bono v. Clark (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1421–1422.) Once the community's pro tanto percentage interest is calculated, it is multiplied by the total value of the property to determine the dollar value of the community's interest. We publish this case to clarify that the community's p


CourtListener opinion 10842842

CourtListener opinion 10842842 Extracted case name: JJ. YOLANDA M. CURRIER v. JAMES M. CURRIER LAWRENCE. Extracted reporter citation: 227 A.3d 159. Docket: number FM-2017-130 FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10842842 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.


CourtListener opinion 10842842

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.


CourtListener opinion 10842842

QDRO: James should be found in contempt for (1) failing to provide an accounting of his stocks or make any payments toward the stock division awarded to Yolanda as required by a previous contempt order and the divorce judgment and (2) failing to file a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as required by a previous contempt order and the divorce judgment to effectuate the division of James's 401(k) account. [¶5] The court (Malia, J.) held a hearing on the fifth motion for contempt on March 15, 2024. At this hearing, Yolanda and James both testified, and the court admitted one exhibit in evidence. [¶6] After the hearing, the cou


CourtListener opinion 10842842

401(k): and not in contempt in other respects. Because we conclude that the court erred in (1) finding that Yolanda had not met her burden to show contempt regarding the division of stock in James's employee stock plan and (2) valuing Yolanda's portion of James's 401(k) account, we vacate the court's judgment. I. BACKGROUND [¶2] The parties, Yolanda1 and James, were married on May 26, 2000. On 1 Because the parties share the same surname, we refer to them by their first names. 2 September 5, 2017, Yolanda filed a complaint for divorce. After multiple mediation sessions, hearings, and settlement conferences, the co


CourtListener opinion 10842842

domestic relations order: ld be found in contempt for (1) failing to provide an accounting of his stocks or make any payments toward the stock division awarded to Yolanda as required by a previous contempt order and the divorce judgment and (2) failing to file a proposed qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) as required by a previous contempt order and the divorce judgment to effectuate the division of James's 401(k) account. [¶5] The court (Malia, J.) held a hearing on the fifth motion for contempt on March 15, 2024. At this hearing, Yolanda and James both testified, and the court admitted one exhibit in evidence. [¶6] After the hearing, the cou


CourtListener opinion 10842842

valuation/division: [¶3] On July 2, 2019, the court entered a judgment of divorce. The court awarded sole parental rights and responsibilities to Yolanda as to the parties' three children and made other determinations regarding, inter alia, child support obligations, marital property division, and spousal support.2 As part of the marital property division, the court awarded Yolanda one-half the value of James's employee stock plan holdings through May 24, 2019, exclusive of any reduction in value due to sales of stock that took place during the pendency of the divorce, and one-half the value of the marital portion of James's retirement bene


CourtListener opinion 10843388

CourtListener opinion 10843388 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10843388 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.


CourtListener opinion 10843388


CourtListener opinion 10843388

QDRO: oenix, Arizona, for Appellant. Alyssa Vinson and A.J. Rohe, III, of Rohe Law, Tavares, for Appellee. April 11, 2025 EDWARDS, C.J. Karl Tucker ("Former Husband"), appeals the trial court's Order On Former Wife's (Jammie Tucker), Amended Motion To Correct Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("Corrective Order"). The Corrective Order, rendered in 2024, relied upon Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(a), and purported to correct a clerical mistake in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") entered in 2021. Former Husband argues that the Corrective Order did not address a clerical mistake but instead made a substantive change to th


CourtListener opinion 10843388

retirement benefits: As an oversimplified explanation of DROP, that means although the employee is still employed, not yet actually retired, FRS begins making pension payments into an account designated for the employee. Payments to an employee's designated DROP account are "the retirement benefits that would have been paid [monthly] had the employee retired," instead of continuing to work. Ganzel v. Ganzel, 770 So. 2d 304, 305 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Depending upon what the employee has elected, those monthly pension payments can be made into the participant's DROP account for several years while the employee continues to work and draw regular pay. T


CourtListener opinion 10843388

pension: reement ("MSA"), dated March 19, 2021, that settled all issues between them.1 In accordance with the MSA, the final judgment provided in part that Former Wife would receive one- half of the marital portion of Former Husband's Florida Retirement System ("FRS") Pension Plan benefits which were to be transferred to her via a QDRO. The final judgment directed Former Husband to retain someone, at his expense, to prepare the QDRO. Former Husband, who was pro se up to this point in the dissolution, retained attorney Raymond Dietrich to carry out that task. Former Wife was represented by her current law firm during the dissolut


CourtListener opinion 10843388

domestic relations order: zona, for Appellant. Alyssa Vinson and A.J. Rohe, III, of Rohe Law, Tavares, for Appellee. April 11, 2025 EDWARDS, C.J. Karl Tucker ("Former Husband"), appeals the trial court's Order On Former Wife's (Jammie Tucker), Amended Motion To Correct Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("Corrective Order"). The Corrective Order, rendered in 2024, relied upon Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540(a), and purported to correct a clerical mistake in a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") entered in 2021. Former Husband argues that the Corrective Order did not address a clerical mistake but instead made a substantive change to th


CourtListener opinion 10844884

CourtListener opinion 10844884 Extracted reporter citation: 959 S.W.2d 615. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10844884 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.


CourtListener opinion 10844884

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.


CourtListener opinion 10844884

QDRO: YS COUNTY NO. 12-2533, THE HONORABLE KARL HAYS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 13, 2025, David Fountain attempted an appeal from the district court's "Final Order Clarifying Final Decree of Divorce and Order Authorizing the Issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order" and "Qualified Domestic Relations Order," both signed on September 3, 2024. After the orders were signed, Fountain timely filed a motion for new trial, which extended the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to December 2, 2024. See Tex. R. App. 26.1(a)(1). The clerk of this Court sent a letter to Fountain's counsel questioning jurisdiction over this


CourtListener opinion 10844884

domestic relations order: NO. 12-2533, THE HONORABLE KARL HAYS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION On January 13, 2025, David Fountain attempted an appeal from the district court's "Final Order Clarifying Final Decree of Divorce and Order Authorizing the Issuance of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order" and "Qualified Domestic Relations Order," both signed on September 3, 2024. After the orders were signed, Fountain timely filed a motion for new trial, which extended the deadline for filing a notice of appeal to December 2, 2024. See Tex. R. App. 26.1(a)(1). The clerk of this Court sent a letter to Fountain's counsel questioning jurisdiction over this


CourtListener opinion 10846358

CourtListener opinion 10846358 Extracted reporter citation: 337 A.2d 559. Docket: 12 at 15-22. The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10846358 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.


CourtListener opinion 10846358


CourtListener opinion 10846358

QDRO: amount of the Participant's Accumulated Contributions, there shall be no additional amount due or payable hereunder. (Ord. 7632. Adopted 08-21-2003.) Id. at 127a-28a (emphasis added). Section 169.07(h) of the Plan governs distributions of benefits under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and provides that "[a]ll rights and benefits, including elections, provided to a Participant in this Plan shall be subject to the rights afforded to an ‘alternate payee' pursuant to a domestic relations order as provided by applicable state law." R.R. at 131a (emphasis added). In addition, Section 169.09 of the Plan governs administration of the Plan


CourtListener opinion 10846358

retirement benefits: n does not contain a definition of spouse or surviving spouse. Id. Section 169.06 of the Plan governs death benefits and provides, in relevant part: (b) Survivor Benefit. If a Participant here under who is receiving a [normal, late, disability, or deferred retirement benefit under the Plan] or is eligible to receive a [normal, late, or deferred retirement benefit under the Plan] shall die, or if a Participant shall be killed in the line of duty of Employment, and be survived by a spouse or any children under the age of eighteen (18), there shall be a Survivor Benefit payable hereunder. The Survivor Benefit shall be paid to


CourtListener opinion 10846358

pension: IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Bonnie Williams : CASES CONSOLIDATED : v. : : City of New Castle and Police : Pension Board for the City of : New Castle, : Appellants : No. 1088 C.D. 2023 Laura Crawford : : v. : : City of New Castle and Police : Pension Board for the City of : New Castle, : No. 1089 C.D. 2023 Appellants : Argued: February 5, 2025 BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY


CourtListener opinion 10846358

alternate payee: 169.07(h) of the Plan governs distributions of benefits under a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) and provides that "[a]ll rights and benefits, including elections, provided to a Participant in this Plan shall be subject to the rights afforded to an ‘alternate payee' pursuant to a domestic relations order as provided by applicable state law." R.R. at 131a (emphasis added). In addition, Section 169.09 of the Plan governs administration of the Plan and provides as follows: (a) Plan Administrator. The [Board] shall be the Plan Administrator and shall have the power and authority to do all acts and to execute, acknowle


CourtListener opinion 10847895

CourtListener opinion 10847895 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Butler. Extracted reporter citation: 28 Cal.3d 366. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10847895 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.


CourtListener opinion 10847895

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.


CourtListener opinion 10847895

QDRO: in the sale of the home, neither side presented evidence or argument regarding th[o]se consequences at trial." It similarly found that there was no evidence presented on the retirement accounts and ordered that the parties retain a qualified expert to prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) and begin working with the expert "within 45 days of receipt" of the statement of decision. The court ordered that the "remaining proceeds from the sale of the home in the amount of approximately $450,568.43 are to be divided equally between the parties after accounting for the $10,000.00 in sanctions previously ordered to be paid out of [Leslie]'s


CourtListener opinion 10847895

retirement benefits: nce and the distribution of retirement pension accounts. On appeal, Leslie challenges the trial court's rulings on the equal division of proceeds from the sale of the residence and contends that the court erred in failing to resolve the capital gains tax and retirement account disputes. She asserts that despite the outstanding retirement account and tax issues, the trial court's decision regarding the disposition of proceeds from the sale is final and may be treated as an appealable order. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that Leslie has appealed from a nonappealable order and exercise our discretion to treat the app


CourtListener opinion 10847895

pension: r reimbursement. The 1 As the parties share a last name, for clarity we refer to them by first name. court noted but made no findings on Leslie's claims regarding the payment of taxes related to the sale of the residence and the distribution of retirement pension accounts. On appeal, Leslie challenges the trial court's rulings on the equal division of proceeds from the sale of the residence and contends that the court erred in failing to resolve the capital gains tax and retirement account disputes. She asserts that despite the outstanding retirement account and tax issues, the trial court's decision regarding the


CourtListener opinion 10847895

domestic relations order: e of the home, neither side presented evidence or argument regarding th[o]se consequences at trial." It similarly found that there was no evidence presented on the retirement accounts and ordered that the parties retain a qualified expert to prepare Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) and begin working with the expert "within 45 days of receipt" of the statement of decision. The court ordered that the "remaining proceeds from the sale of the home in the amount of approximately $450,568.43 are to be divided equally between the parties after accounting for the $10,000.00 in sanctions previously ordered to be paid out of [Leslie]'s


CourtListener opinion 10851057

CourtListener opinion 10851057 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of CHRISTINA DeBENEDETTI and MORGAN ENSBURG. Extracted reporter citation: 106 Cal.App.4th 754. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10851057 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.


CourtListener opinion 10851057


CourtListener opinion 10851057

QDRO: h as pensions, that are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.; (ERISA)), are generally not assignable. An exception to this rule is an assignment of all or part of a pension benefit payment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is defined, in part, as a " ‘domestic relations order' " relating "to the provision of . . . marital property rights" that creates "the existence of an alternate [retirement plan] payee." (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B).) For our purposes an ex-spouse is generally the alternate payee. In this case, the trial judge 1 assigned four of Morgan's 2 E


CourtListener opinion 10851057

retirement benefits: . Goldsmith and Victor M. Torres, Judges. Affirmed. Bickford Blado & Botros and Andrew J. Botros for Appellant. Complex Appellate Litigation Group, Gregory R. Ellis and Kelly A. Woodruff; Dick & Wagner and Stephen J. Wagner for Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Retirement accounts, such as pensions, that are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.; (ERISA)), are generally not assignable. An exception to this rule is an assignment of all or part of a pension benefit payment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is defined, in part, as a " ‘domestic relati


CourtListener opinion 10851057

pension: INTRODUCTION Retirement accounts, such as pensions, that are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.; (ERISA)), are generally not assignable. An exception to this rule is an assignment of all or part of a pension benefit payment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is defined, in part, as a " ‘domestic relations order' " relating "to the provision of . . . marital property rights" that creates "the existence of an alternate [retirement plan] payee." (29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B).) For our purposes an ex-spouse is generally the alternate payee


CourtListener opinion 10851057

ERISA: Group, Gregory R. Ellis and Kelly A. Woodruff; Dick & Wagner and Stephen J. Wagner for Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Retirement accounts, such as pensions, that are governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq.; (ERISA)), are generally not assignable. An exception to this rule is an assignment of all or part of a pension benefit payment pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). A QDRO is defined, in part, as a " ‘domestic relations order' " relating "to the provision of . . . marital property rights" that creates "the existence of an alternate [retirement


CourtListener opinion 1085120

CourtListener opinion 1085120 Extracted case name: SIDERS v. OPM. Extracted reporter citation: 407 F.3d 1309. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1085120 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.


CourtListener opinion 1085120


CourtListener opinion 1085120

QDRO: ore they divorced in 1993. That year, a Flori- da state court issued a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which incorporated a property settlement agreement between the parties. The settlement agree- ment stated that Ms. Siders was "entitled to have a qualified domestic relations order entered . . . which shall provide that she receive fifty percent (50%) of [Mr. Sid- ers's] United States Post Office pension if, as, and when he receives such pension." In October 1996, the same court issued a qualified domestic relations order stating that Ms. Siders was "hereby awarded fifty percent (50%) in [Mr. Siders's] entitlement under the United Sta


CourtListener opinion 1085120

retirement benefits: ing that Ms. Siders was "hereby awarded fifty percent (50%) in [Mr. Siders's] entitlement under the United States Post Office Pension Plan." In November 1996, OPM wrote to Ms. Siders regard- ing her "application for a portion of [her] former spouse's Federal retirement benefit." OPM explained that no benefits were payable at that time because Mr. Siders had "not yet retired or applied for a refund of retirement contributions." OPM also noted that there was "no refer- ence to a survivor annuity award in th[e] court order," which meant that, as matters then stood, Ms. Siders was "ineligible for a court awarded survivor benefit." OP


CourtListener opinion 1085120

pension: nt agreement between the parties. The settlement agree- ment stated that Ms. Siders was "entitled to have a qualified domestic relations order entered . . . which shall provide that she receive fifty percent (50%) of [Mr. Sid- ers's] United States Post Office pension if, as, and when he receives such pension." In October 1996, the same court issued a qualified domestic relations order stating that Ms. Siders was "hereby awarded fifty percent (50%) in [Mr. Siders's] entitlement under the United States Post Office Pension Plan." In November 1996, OPM wrote to Ms. Siders regard- ing her "application for a portion of [her]


CourtListener opinion 1085120

domestic relations order: ivorced in 1993. That year, a Flori- da state court issued a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, which incorporated a property settlement agreement between the parties. The settlement agree- ment stated that Ms. Siders was "entitled to have a qualified domestic relations order entered . . . which shall provide that she receive fifty percent (50%) of [Mr. Sid- ers's] United States Post Office pension if, as, and when he receives such pension." In October 1996, the same court issued a qualified domestic relations order stating that Ms. Siders was "hereby awarded fifty percent (50%) in [Mr. Siders's] entitlement under the United Sta


CourtListener opinion 1086764

CourtListener opinion 1086764 Extracted reporter citation: 78 S.W.3d 291. Docket: M2012-01338-COA-R3-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1086764 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.


CourtListener opinion 1086764


CourtListener opinion 1086764

QDRO: as well as [Husband's] abilities to meet those needs, the Court, as alimony in solido, awards one half (50%) of [Husband's] Saturn and GM pension benefits as January 1, 2010 to [Wife]. Counsel for [Wife] shall be responsible for preparing the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order or Orders to further effectuate the division of [Husband's] Saturn/GM pension benefits. The trial court went on to state: "Until [Wife] begins receiving payments pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order(s), [Husband] shall continue to send [Wife] the sum of $699.52 each month . . . and [Husband] shall take no action which might affect the right o


CourtListener opinion 1086764

retirement benefits: s no evidence offered at trial by either party to establish the portion of [Husband's] pension benefits were attributable to his premarital earnings, i.e., his separate property, which was [Husband's] burden of proof, nor to show the portion of [Husband's] retirement benefits which are attributable to his post- marital earnings, i.e., the partial portion, which was the burden of both parties. For these reasons, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to award a portion of [Husband's] pension benefits to [Wife] as part of the division of the marital estate. However, based upon all of the factors set forth in Tennessee C


CourtListener opinion 1086764

pension: and contends this was error for he expressly refused to be liable for this debt. The court also awarded a judgment against Husband in favor of Wife for $101,714 of expenses she incurred to maintain the marital residence. Wife was awarded one half of Husband's pension and $75,000 of her attorney's fees as alimony in solido, and sixty months of rehabilitative alimony, at $1,250 per month. Husband contends that all of these awards were error. Husband, however, provided no transcript of the evidence or statement of the evidence; therefore, there is no evidence before this court upon which to find that the evidence preponder


CourtListener opinion 1086764

domestic relations order: s [Husband's] abilities to meet those needs, the Court, as alimony in solido, awards one half (50%) of [Husband's] Saturn and GM pension benefits as January 1, 2010 to [Wife]. Counsel for [Wife] shall be responsible for preparing the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order or Orders to further effectuate the division of [Husband's] Saturn/GM pension benefits. The trial court went on to state: "Until [Wife] begins receiving payments pursuant to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order(s), [Husband] shall continue to send [Wife] the sum of $699.52 each month . . . and [Husband] shall take no action which might affect the right o


CourtListener opinion 1087057

CourtListener opinion 1087057 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1087057 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.


CourtListener opinion 1087057

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.


CourtListener opinion 1087057

domestic relations order: H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. —————————— Shiloh Raywolfgang Brummitt appeals his convictions, after a jury trial, of false imprisonment by violence, kidnapping, criminal threats, assault with a deadly weapon, disobeying a domestic relations order, and battery. We affirm. BACKGROUND The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging Brummitt with false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, § 236; count 1),1 corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count 2), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count 3), criminal threats (§ 422; count 4), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd


CourtListener opinion 10874341

CourtListener opinion 10874341 Docket: 1 which was. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10874341 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.


CourtListener opinion 10874341

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.


CourtListener opinion 10874341

QDRO: • To equalize equitable distribution, [Husband] shall remit the amount of $20,000 to [Wife] no later than May 26, 2019. Pursuant to the final divorce order and Exhibit 1, there were six retirement accounts that were to be distributed between the parties by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO"), which were not tendered to the family court until 2024. In January 2024, Husband raised the issue that Exhibit 1 overvalued a whole life insurance policy that had been awarded to him by approximately $40,000 and that he should have received $80,000 in Conrad credits3 which were not included in the divorce order or Exhibit 1. On or about June 16,


CourtListener opinion 10874341

retirement benefits: f their marital property and how said property was to be divided. 1 • To equalize equitable distribution, [Husband] shall remit the amount of $20,000 to [Wife] no later than May 26, 2019. Pursuant to the final divorce order and Exhibit 1, there were six retirement accounts that were to be distributed between the parties by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO"), which were not tendered to the family court until 2024. In January 2024, Husband raised the issue that Exhibit 1 overvalued a whole life insurance policy that had been awarded to him by approximately $40,000 and that he should have received $80,000 in Conrad cr


CourtListener opinion 10874341

domestic relations order: ize equitable distribution, [Husband] shall remit the amount of $20,000 to [Wife] no later than May 26, 2019. Pursuant to the final divorce order and Exhibit 1, there were six retirement accounts that were to be distributed between the parties by Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO"), which were not tendered to the family court until 2024. In January 2024, Husband raised the issue that Exhibit 1 overvalued a whole life insurance policy that had been awarded to him by approximately $40,000 and that he should have received $80,000 in Conrad credits3 which were not included in the divorce order or Exhibit 1. On or about June 16,


CourtListener opinion 10874341

valuation/division: CA-310 (Fam. Ct. Monongalia Cnty. Case No. FC-31-2018-D-176) MELISSA DOWER, Petitioner Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Joshua Dower ("Husband") appeals the Monongalia County Family Court's July 8, 2024, order denying his motion to reopen equitable distribution due to alleged errors in the parties' September 19, 2019, divorce order. Respondent Melissa Dower ("Wife") filed a response in support of the family court's decision.1 Husband filed a reply. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51- 11-4 (2024). After considering the parties' arguments, the record on appeal, and the


CourtListener opinion 10887006

CourtListener opinion 10887006 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10887006 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.


CourtListener opinion 10887006


CourtListener opinion 10887006

QDRO: . That judgment provided that husband's "military retirement ben- efits shall be equally divided as of the date of marriage to May 15, 2009," and that the parties "shall cooperate with each other in every respect to cause a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) as may be necessary to be entered to achieve the intent of this agreement in the division of the retirement asset and will split the cost of preparing such QDRO equally." In January 2013, wife's attorney prepared a supplemental judgment that awarded wife "38.05 percent of [husband's] final disposable military retired pay[.]" The judg- ment referenced husba


CourtListener opinion 10887006

retirement benefits: idence and mailing address," and that he "kept the PO box open" for his daugh- ter's use. Viewing husband's conduct in light of the stipulated dissolution judgment—which explicitly required the par- ties to "cooperate" and "equally divide" husband's military retirement benefits during the marriage—we conclude that husband's failure to inform the trial court of a new mailing Cite as 340 Or App 213 (2025) 217 address nearly three years after the dissolution judgment was entered was reasonable. As a consequence, any neglect "was excusable." Hiatt v. Congoleum Industries, 279 Or 569, 577, 569 P2d 567 (1977) (concluding that the mov


CourtListener opinion 10887006

pension: litary for 364 months and that the 218 Dintleman and Dintleman marriage was 140 months. As a consequence, the attorney determined: "The figure used by DFAS, 38.05%, is close to what we believe represents the entire marital share. This would mean that the pension share was improperly calculated and the pension was incorrectly divided. Generally speak- ing, a spouse is entitled to one-half of the marital share of the employee's retired pay. If 38.05% is the marital share, then the [wife] would be entitled to one-half of that figure, or 19.025%." Moreover, although the stipulated dissolution judg- ment required


CourtListener opinion 10887761

CourtListener opinion 10887761 Extracted case name: COA JANICE LODEN SULLIVAN APPELLANT v. JAMES WAYNE SULLIVAN APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10887761 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.


CourtListener opinion 10887761


CourtListener opinion 10887761

QDRO: § 6:32 (discussing "four major weaknesses" of the deferred distribution method). In addition to other potential weaknesses of this method, PERS will not administer payments ordered by divorce decrees, and PERS benefits are not subject to a division through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Pruitt, 144 So. 3d at 1253 (¶12). Therefore, a court can only order the PERS member to make payments to his or her former spouse. 7 case [utilizing the deferred distribution approach], the nonowning spouse will receive his or her exact correct share of the retirement benefits."). ¶14. The only error in the judgment is that it limits Janice's right to


CourtListener opinion 10887761

retirement benefits: e sum of all twelve years of payments because the payments are in the nature of lump sum alimony. ¶2. We conclude that the payments are not lump sum alimony but rather reflect what has been referred to as a "deferred distribution" of the marital portion of retirement benefits. Therefore, the chancellor did not err by denying Janice's request for judgment for the sum of all future payments. However, we also conclude that the logic of the chancellor's deferred distribution dictates that Janice is entitled to her share of the marital portion of all PERS benefits received by Wayne. Therefore, we modify the judgment by striking


CourtListener opinion 10887761

domestic relations order: iscussing "four major weaknesses" of the deferred distribution method). In addition to other potential weaknesses of this method, PERS will not administer payments ordered by divorce decrees, and PERS benefits are not subject to a division through a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Pruitt, 144 So. 3d at 1253 (¶12). Therefore, a court can only order the PERS member to make payments to his or her former spouse. 7 case [utilizing the deferred distribution approach], the nonowning spouse will receive his or her exact correct share of the retirement benefits."). ¶14. The only error in the judgment is that it limits Janice's right to


CourtListener opinion 10887761

valuation/division: ILSON, P.J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. This is the second appeal in this divorce case. In the first appeal, this Court reversed and remanded for additional findings regarding the equitable division of the marital estate. The only issue in this appeal concerns the marital portion of the husband's Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) benefits. Wayne Sullivan was already retired and drawing PERS benefits when the parties separated. On remand, the chancellor calculated the marital portion of Wayne's monthly benefit payment and ordered him to pay his ex-wife, Janice Sullivan, one half of that amount each month for t


CourtListener opinion 10920316

CourtListener opinion 10920316 Extracted reporter citation: 477 U.S. 242. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10920316 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.


CourtListener opinion 10920316


CourtListener opinion 10920316

QDRO: and Lisa Kottke as contingent beneficiaries. Id. Kottke died in 2012, but Scholz was still living when Kleinfeldt died. Kleinfeldt and Langdon divorced in September 2022 after a 16-year marriage. As part of the divorce, Kleinfeldt and Langdon agreed to a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) stating that Langdon would receive 21.3% of Kleinfeldt's 401k benefits. Dkt. 21-7, at 2. Pursuant to the QDRO, the plan divided the benefits and paid Langdon her percentage of the plan, which amounted to $65,953.25. After the divorce, Kleinfeldt attempted to remove Langdon as the primary beneficiary of his 401k. On October 4, 2022, Kleinfeldt s


CourtListener opinion 10920316

retirement benefits: o as the contingent beneficiary, she was the proper recipient of the 401k after Langdon's removal. UNDISPUTED FACTS The following facts are undisputed. Carl Kleinfeldt worked at Packaging Corporation of America for 32 years and participated in a 401k retirement plan administered by plaintiff Packaging Corporation of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees. The plan allows participants to name beneficiaries to receive unpaid plan benefits if the participant dies. Dkt. 27-8, at 5. There are two ways to change a beneficiary: a participant can "contact the PCA Benefits Center at 1-877-453-0945" or "update [his] benefi


CourtListener opinion 10920316

pension: October 4, 2022, Kleinfeldt sent a fax to Packaging Corporation, attaching a copy of the divorce judgment and writing: "Please remove my former spouse, Dena Suzanne Kleinfeldt from the health, vision and dental insurance and as a beneficiary of my 401(k), pension and life insurance accounts. Please feel free to fax any necessary paperwork to the above fax that I may need to complete."1 Dkt. 27–3. Packaging Corporation received the fax and removed Langdon from health, vision, and dental insurance. Dkt. 23 at 2. Packaging Corporation did not remove Langdon as a beneficiary of the 401k plan. Id. Kleinfeldt died on