CourtListener opinion 10565020

retirement benefits: pellant Gregory Wayne Coon and Appellee Victoria Jacobs Coon (Thomas) 1 divorced in 1996. Twenty-five years later, in January 2021, Gregory filed a petition for enforcement of a portion of their divorce decree's property division, seeking 40% of Victoria's retirement benefits, and both parties moved for summary judgment. Victoria also filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or to clarify. The trial court heard the motions at a consolidated hearing on October 21, 2021, and then granted Victoria's motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and awarded attorneys' fees to her. On June 1, 2023,2 the trial court entered a final judgment


CourtListener opinion 10565020

sheet was not included in the record. See Baker

QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues

domestic relations order: The record reflects that there were four principal documents considered by the trial court in making its October 2021 nunc pro tunc determination: a February 15, 1996 letter to counsel; the April 17, 1996 divorce decree; and two August 16, 1996 Qualified Domestic Relations Orders. Both parties refer to the February 15, 1996 letter as the trial court's rendition. 1 Because both parties had the same surname at times relevant to this appeal, we will refer to them by their first names to avoid confusion. 2 During the interim, Gregory attempted to appeal from the trial court's interlocutory order, and we dismissed that appeal for


CourtListener opinion 10565020

valuation/division: n by Justice Birdwell MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Gregory Wayne Coon and Appellee Victoria Jacobs Coon (Thomas) 1 divorced in 1996. Twenty-five years later, in January 2021, Gregory filed a petition for enforcement of a portion of their divorce decree's property division, seeking 40% of Victoria's retirement benefits, and both parties moved for summary judgment. Victoria also filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc or to clarify. The trial court heard the motions at a consolidated hearing on October 21, 2021, and then granted Victoria's motion for judgment nunc pro tunc and awarded attorneys' fees to her. On June 1,


CourtListener opinion 10570766

CourtListener opinion 10570766 Extracted reporter citation: 921 S.W.2d 944. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10570766 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 10570766

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 10570766

QDRO: he hearing, a divorce was granted on the basis of general indignities. A divorce decree and property settlement order was issued from the court a week later. The decree ordered that Karen was entitled to her marital share of Luciano's retirement account. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the retirement account was filed August 23, 2022. On February 4, 2023, Karen, represented by counsel, filed a pleading titled "Brief in Support of Petition for Alimony." On February 8, Karen filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree under Rule 60 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. In the motion, she alternatively requested


CourtListener opinion 10570766

retirement benefits: e detail. Following the hearing, a divorce was granted on the basis of general indignities. A divorce decree and property settlement order was issued from the court a week later. The decree ordered that Karen was entitled to her marital share of Luciano's retirement account. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the retirement account was filed August 23, 2022. On February 4, 2023, Karen, represented by counsel, filed a pleading titled "Brief in Support of Petition for Alimony." On February 8, Karen filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree under Rule 60 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. In th


CourtListener opinion 10570766

domestic relations order: , a divorce was granted on the basis of general indignities. A divorce decree and property settlement order was issued from the court a week later. The decree ordered that Karen was entitled to her marital share of Luciano's retirement account. A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) dividing the retirement account was filed August 23, 2022. On February 4, 2023, Karen, represented by counsel, filed a pleading titled "Brief in Support of Petition for Alimony." On February 8, Karen filed a motion to set aside the divorce decree under Rule 60 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. In the motion, she alternatively requested


CourtListener opinion 10571326

CourtListener opinion 10571326 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10571326 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 10571326


CourtListener opinion 10571326

QDRO: rties [. . .] until the same can be equitably distributed between the parties." Their final amended divorce order, entered on May 13, 2008, directed the following: The marital estate shall be equalized by the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ["QDRO"] granting [Mr. Thomas] an interest in [Ms. Thomas's] Accordia/Wells Fargo pension in the amount of $40,542.24. [Mr. Thomas] or [Mr. Thomas's] counsel shall be responsible for the preparation for entry of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order to which [Ms. Thomas] shall cooperate fully. 1 Both parties are self-represented. 1 Ms. Thomas failed to


CourtListener opinion 10571326

retirement benefits: . Thomas's] counsel shall be responsible for the preparation for entry of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order to which [Ms. Thomas] shall cooperate fully. 1 Both parties are self-represented. 1 Ms. Thomas failed to provide information regarding her retirement account to facilitate the entry of a QDRO as required by the May 13, 2008, final divorce order. Mr. Thomas then filed a motion to show cause and a hearing on his motion was held on May 9, 2012. At that hearing, Ms. Thomas testified that she had withdrawn all monies from her retirement account. Mr. Thomas argued that the June 13, 2003, temporary order restrained and


CourtListener opinion 10571326

pension: heir final amended divorce order, entered on May 13, 2008, directed the following: The marital estate shall be equalized by the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ["QDRO"] granting [Mr. Thomas] an interest in [Ms. Thomas's] Accordia/Wells Fargo pension in the amount of $40,542.24. [Mr. Thomas] or [Mr. Thomas's] counsel shall be responsible for the preparation for entry of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order to which [Ms. Thomas] shall cooperate fully. 1 Both parties are self-represented. 1 Ms. Thomas failed to provide information regarding her retirement account to facilitate the entry of a QD


CourtListener opinion 10571326

domestic relations order: fied Domestic Relations Order ["QDRO"] granting [Mr. Thomas] an interest in [Ms. Thomas's] Accordia/Wells Fargo pension in the amount of $40,542.24. [Mr. Thomas] or [Mr. Thomas's] counsel shall be responsible for the preparation for entry of the Qualified Domestic Relations Order to which [Ms. Thomas] shall cooperate fully. 1 Both parties are self-represented. 1 Ms. Thomas failed to provide information regarding her retirement account to facilitate the entry of a QDRO as required by the May 13, 2008, final divorce order. Mr. Thomas then filed a motion to show cause and a hearing on his motion was held on May 9, 2012. At that


CourtListener opinion 1057171

CourtListener opinion 1057171 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Mathis. Docket: 113496. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1057171 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 1057171


CourtListener opinion 1057171

QDRO: fore us because it did not involve bifurcated proceedings. There, the trial court entered a single order dissolving the parties' marriage and distributing the marital property, including the husband's 401(k) account whose distribution required a subsequent qualified domestic relations order. See 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(2) (West 2010). The issue was whether a decrease in the value of that account should be borne by the husband individually or the parties collectively. ¶ 29 The appellate court stated that placing the entire burden of that loss on the husband was "both unfair and contrary to the judgment of dissolution," which sought an equal overal


CourtListener opinion 1057171

401(k): that case is factually distinguishable from the case before us because it did not involve bifurcated proceedings. There, the trial court entered a single order dissolving the parties' marriage and distributing the marital property, including the husband's 401(k) account whose distribution required a subsequent qualified domestic relations order. See 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(2) (West 2010). The issue was whether a decrease in the value of that account should be borne by the husband individually or the parties collectively. ¶ 29 The appellate court stated that placing the entire burden of that loss on the husband was "bo


CourtListener opinion 1057171

domestic relations order: ecause it did not involve bifurcated proceedings. There, the trial court entered a single order dissolving the parties' marriage and distributing the marital property, including the husband's 401(k) account whose distribution required a subsequent qualified domestic relations order. See 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(2) (West 2010). The issue was whether a decrease in the value of that account should be borne by the husband individually or the parties collectively. ¶ 29 The appellate court stated that placing the entire burden of that loss on the husband was "both unfair and contrary to the judgment of dissolution," which sought an equal overal


CourtListener opinion 1057171

survivor benefits: ave become entangled with the supervening rights of third parties, including subsequent spouses. Additionally, entering a judgment of dissolution prior to property disposition would complicate, rather than simplify, matters with respect to the rights of a surviving spouse in the event of an intervening death. Other complications that can ensue if a judgment of dissolution is not deferred until disposition of the other matters include the loss of ability to file joint income tax returns, the loss of medical insurance coverage, and the loss of marital-property treatment for property accumulated during the intervening perio


CourtListener opinion 10572023

CourtListener opinion 10572023 Docket: 589. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10572023 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 10572023


CourtListener opinion 10572023

QDRO: had not included an equal- izing judgment for wife. But the general judgment included an equalizing judgment of $261,905.89.1 After the filing of the notice of appeal, the court entered a limited judgment that included a qualified domes- tic relations order (QDRO), ORS 238.465, directing the divi- sion of husband's PERS account pursuant to the terms of the general judgment. Husband's first assignment of error focuses on the court's award to wife of $261,905.89, as an equalizing judgment: "The trial court erred by dividing the parties' property in a manner that was not ‘just and proper in all the circum- stances'


CourtListener opinion 10572023

retirement benefits: upport and the award to wife of an equalizing judgment. He con- tends, further, that the trial court lacked authority, after the filing of husband's notice of appeal, to enter a supplemen- tal judgment allocating his Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) retirement account. We conclude that the trial court did not err in entering the supplemental judgment implementing an order allocating husband's PERS account. However, we conclude that, because of a lack of explanation by the trial court, it is not possible to for us to review the trial court's equalizing award to wife. We therefore reverse and remand the general judgment fo


CourtListener opinion 10572023

valuation/division: id- eration of equalizing award and otherwise affirmed; supple- mental judgment affirmed. Cite as 334 Or App 500 (2024) 501 EGAN, J. Husband appeals from general and supplemental judgments dissolving the parties' 28-year marriage, assign- ing error to the property division, specifically to the trial court's award to wife of property in lieu of spousal support and the award to wife of an equalizing judgment. He con- tends, further, that the trial court lacked authority, after the filing of husband's notice of appeal, to enter a supplemen- tal judgment allocating his Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) retirement account


CourtListener opinion 10573146

CourtListener opinion 10573146 Docket: 2023CA00165 4 further violation of this. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10573146 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 10573146

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 10573146

QDRO: IN addition, the [appellant] is ordered to pay to the [appellee] partial attorney fees for work related to these contempt motions the sum of $500.00 within 30 days of the filing of this order. Further, the trial court ordered the parties to divide by QDRO the marital portion of their pension and deferred-benefit plans. Finally, to achieve an equal division of marital property, the court ordered the Husband to pay the Wife $14,372 from his annuity. {¶9} Within days of the May 2, 2023, divorce decree, the appellee's counsel sent the appellant's counsel two letters in an effort to ensure her cooperation in


CourtListener opinion 10573146

pension: dered to pay to the [appellee] partial attorney fees for work related to these contempt motions the sum of $500.00 within 30 days of the filing of this order. Further, the trial court ordered the parties to divide by QDRO the marital portion of their pension and deferred-benefit plans. Finally, to achieve an equal division of marital property, the court ordered the Husband to pay the Wife $14,372 from his annuity. {¶9} Within days of the May 2, 2023, divorce decree, the appellee's counsel sent the appellant's counsel two letters in an effort to ensure her cooperation in selling the home to avoid foreclosur


CourtListener opinion 10573146

valuation/division: ion, the [appellant] is ordered to pay to the [appellee] partial attorney fees for work related to these contempt motions the sum of $500.00 within 30 days of the filing of this order. Further, the trial court ordered the parties to divide by QDRO the marital portion of their pension and deferred-benefit plans. Finally, to achieve an equal division of marital property, the court ordered the Husband to pay the Wife $14,372 from his annuity. {¶9} Within days of the May 2, 2023, divorce decree, the appellee's counsel sent the appellant's counsel two letters in an effort to ensure her cooperation in selling the home t


CourtListener opinion 1057546

CourtListener opinion 1057546 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of CHINYE UWECHUE-. Extracted reporter citation: 160 Cal.App.4th 574. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1057546 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 1057546


CourtListener opinion 1057546

QDRO: per., for Appellant. Brian M. Moore for Respondent. ****** In this legal separation action, appellant Chinye Uwechue appeals pro se the trial court‟s alleged failure to hear three motions to compel further responses to discovery in 2008 before entering a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO)1 on October 28, 2008, and the trial court‟s March 13, 2012 award of sanctions of attorney fees and costs in favor of respondent Michael Akpati in conjunction with a second QDRO entered on the same date. Because appellant‟s notice of appeal as to the motions to compel is untimely, we dismiss that portion of the appeal. As to the order imposing sanctio


CourtListener opinion 1057546

pension: ugust 19, 2003. Based on a marital settlement agreement, final judgment was entered on April 12, 2006. No appeal was taken from that judgment. It appears that, between 2006 and 2008, respondent attempted to join into the action several employment benefit and pension plans. Respondent filed a motion on February 7, 2008, which likely was for entry of a QDRO related to the pension and benefit plans. The hearing on the motion was continued at least twice, based on appellant‟s concerns about withdrawals from the pension plans, and was set for hearing on October 22, 2008. Respondent served discovery requests in August 2008 s


CourtListener opinion 1057546

401(k): d a motion on December 14, 2011, apparently to amend the 2008 QDRO. The trial court heard the motion on February 1, 2012. The court entered a notice of ruling on February 2, 2012, and an order on March 13, 2012, which granted the "motion to amend the Rockwell 401(k) Qualified Domestic Relations Order and for attorney fees and costs as sanctions" and awarded sanctions against appellant in the form of attorney fees and costs of $2,500 (the 2012 QDRO and sanctions order). Appellant filed her notice of appeal on March 27, 2012. She identified two "bases for [the] appeal": (1) the trial court‟s failure to hear the three mo


CourtListener opinion 1057546

alternate payee: ring" on October 29, 2008 (the 2008 QDRO). 1 A QDRO is defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, title 29 of the United States Code section 1056(d)(3)(B), as "a domestic relations order," "which 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 pension plan, provided certain requirements are met. 2 In the meantime, on September 4, 2008, appellant propounded discovery on respondent related to the pension plan issues. Respondent served responses on Sep


CourtListener opinion 10575823

CourtListener opinion 10575823 Extracted case name: V.J.H. v. C.A.B. Extracted reporter citation: 442 N.W.2d 545. Docket: 2017AP2474 Cir. Ct. No. 2014FA95 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10575823 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 10575823

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 10575823

QDRO: nty-one separate issues for our consideration. However, the argument section of Roberts' brief addresses only the four issues identified above. We therefore confine our discussion to those four issues. 2 No. 2017AP2474 ¶3 In December 2014, Roberts signed qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) regarding two of his pensions, and those orders were approved by the circuit court in February 2015. The court ultimately entered a third QDRO regarding another of Roberts' pensions in October 2015. ¶4 In May 2016, Perone moved the circuit court to find Roberts in contempt for violating the divorce judgment. She alleged that Roberts had failed to


CourtListener opinion 10575823

domestic relations order: parate issues for our consideration. However, the argument section of Roberts' brief addresses only the four issues identified above. We therefore confine our discussion to those four issues. 2 No. 2017AP2474 ¶3 In December 2014, Roberts signed qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs) regarding two of his pensions, and those orders were approved by the circuit court in February 2015. The court ultimately entered a third QDRO regarding another of Roberts' pensions in October 2015. ¶4 In May 2016, Perone moved the circuit court to find Roberts in contempt for violating the divorce judgment. She alleged that Roberts had failed to


CourtListener opinion 10575823

valuation/division: ffirm.3 BACKGROUND ¶2 Roberts petitioned for divorce from Perone in May 2014. In October 2014, the circuit court entered a judgment of divorce that incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA) signed by the parties. The MSA required Roberts to make a property division equalization payment of $87,000 to Perone, consisting of monthly payments of $1000 from October 2014 through July 2019 and a lump sum payment in June 2019. The equalization payment was secured by a first mortgage on certain real estate located in Chetek that had been awarded to Roberts. 1 Although Perone was represented by counsel in the circuit court, b


CourtListener opinion 10575943

CourtListener opinion 10575943 Extracted reporter citation: 830 N.W.2d 647. Docket: 2019AP1200 Cir. Ct. No. 1991FA915107 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10575943 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 10575943


CourtListener opinion 10575943

QDRO: whether a contempt motion seeking to enforce a pension division provision of a divorce judgment, filed more than twenty years after the divorce judgment, was barred by WIS. STAT. § 893.40. Johnson, 347 Wis. 2d 238, ¶1. That judgment specifically called for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be filed with the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS), from which Johnson's former husband, Masters, was to eventually receive a pension. Id. ¶13 Their divorce judgment was entered in 1989. Id. Johnson found out in March 2010 that Masters had retired. Id., ¶8. She then attempted to file a QDRO with WRS, but was informed that it required Masters' a


CourtListener opinion 10575943

pension: in a marital property agreement with his former wife, Kathy Schwab (n/k/a Siech), included in their divorce judgment No. 2019AP1200 entered in 1992. Siech filed a contempt motion seeking to enforce that particular provision—the division of Schwab's military pension—in 2017. Schwab argued that Siech's motion was barred by the time limits set forth in WIS. STAT. § 893.40 (2017-18),1 which generally precludes "action upon a judgment or decree of a court" after twenty years. ¶2 However, the trial court found that because obligations under a marital property agreement often extend beyond twenty years, it had the equitabl


CourtListener opinion 10575943

alternate payee: as no "reasonable basis" for not applying WIS. STAT. § 893.40 in Johnson. Id., 347 Wis. 2d 238, ¶48 (Prosser, J., dissenting). He explained that some judgments "require some additional step or steps to secure a right. Filing a QDRO protects the rights of the ‘alternate payee' with respect to both public and private retirement benefits." Id., ¶109. That was the case here, where "Johnson's interest in a portion of Masters' pension was always contingent upon her taking steps to secure and enforce her rights" but she "did not do so until more than 20 years after the divorce judgment." Id., ¶64. Justice Prosser further noted that "[


CourtListener opinion 10575943

domestic relations order: contempt motion seeking to enforce a pension division provision of a divorce judgment, filed more than twenty years after the divorce judgment, was barred by WIS. STAT. § 893.40. Johnson, 347 Wis. 2d 238, ¶1. That judgment specifically called for a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) to be filed with the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS), from which Johnson's former husband, Masters, was to eventually receive a pension. Id. ¶13 Their divorce judgment was entered in 1989. Id. Johnson found out in March 2010 that Masters had retired. Id., ¶8. She then attempted to file a QDRO with WRS, but was informed that it required Masters' a


CourtListener opinion 10577167

CourtListener opinion 10577167 Extracted reporter citation: 741 N.W.2d 256. Docket: 2020AP2114-FT Cir. Ct. No. 2019FA162 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10577167 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 10577167

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 10577167

QDRO: ded at mediation. Hahn did not file updated valuations with the court because Higgins was not updating his valuations with the court. At her counsel's request, Hahn provided the $1.1 million 401k valuation to Delphi Consulting Group for its use in preparing a QDRO because that figure matched the 401k valuation on Exhibits R14 and R9, the spreadsheets from the mediation. ¶11 In denying Higgins's WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(c) motion to reopen the judgment of divorce, the circuit court recognized that whether to grant the motion was within its discretion. The court found Hahn more credible than Higgins because his "recoll


CourtListener opinion 10577167

retirement benefits: WI App 218, ¶10 n.1, 305 Wis. 2d 658, 741 N.W.2d 256.2 The appendix to the appellant's brief also lacks record references and violates the Rules of Appellate Procedure. RULE 809.19(2)(a). ¶3 The dispute in this case arises from the valuation of Hahn's 401k retirement account for purposes of the property division. In a WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(c) motion seeking relief from the property division, Higgins claimed that Hahn did not disclose the true value of her 401k account for their October 2019 mediation. At an early hearing on Higgins's § 806.07(1)(c) motion, Hahn looked up the value of her 401k as of the mediation date and revea


CourtListener opinion 10577167

401(k): 2007 WI App 218, ¶10 n.1, 305 Wis. 2d 658, 741 N.W.2d 256.2 The appendix to the appellant's brief also lacks record references and violates the Rules of Appellate Procedure. RULE 809.19(2)(a). ¶3 The dispute in this case arises from the valuation of Hahn's 401k retirement account for purposes of the property division. In a WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(c) motion seeking relief from the property division, Higgins claimed that Hahn did not disclose the true value of her 401k account for their October 2019 mediation. At an early hearing on Higgins's § 806.07(1)(c) motion, Hahn looked up the value of her 401k as of the media


CourtListener opinion 10577167

valuation/division: 741 N.W.2d 256.2 The appendix to the appellant's brief also lacks record references and violates the Rules of Appellate Procedure. RULE 809.19(2)(a). ¶3 The dispute in this case arises from the valuation of Hahn's 401k retirement account for purposes of the property division. In a WIS. STAT. § 806.07(1)(c) motion seeking relief from the property division, Higgins claimed that Hahn did not disclose the true value of her 401k account for their October 2019 mediation. At an early hearing on Higgins's § 806.07(1)(c) motion, Hahn looked up the value of her 401k as of the mediation date and revealed that it was $1.5 million. In light


CourtListener opinion 10577699

CourtListener opinion 10577699 Extracted reporter citation: 768 N.W.2d 641. Docket: 2022AP523 Cir. Ct. No. 2020FA676 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10577699 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 10577699


CourtListener opinion 10577699

QDRO: the market for sale and the equalization payment coming from the net proceeds from the sale of the home. The circuit court commissioner approved the MSA, signing it on March 4, 2021. Through their attorneys, Jeffrey and Debra then negotiated and approved a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) enabling Debra to receive $55,000 as a lump-sum payment from Jeffrey's retirement plan. The QDRO stated that Debra, as the "alternate payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the [plan] participant[,] … will be required to pay the applicable federal, state, and local income taxes on such distributions." The circuit court signed the QDRO on March 3


CourtListener opinion 10577699

retirement benefits: ircuit court commissioner approved the MSA, signing it on March 4, 2021. Through their attorneys, Jeffrey and Debra then negotiated and approved a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) enabling Debra to receive $55,000 as a lump-sum payment from Jeffrey's retirement plan. The QDRO stated that Debra, as the "alternate payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the [plan] participant[,] … will be required to pay the applicable federal, state, and local income taxes on such distributions." The circuit court signed the QDRO on March 30. The final judgment of divorce, signed by the commissioner on April 13, 2021, expressly inco


CourtListener opinion 10577699

alternate payee: t on March 4, 2021. Through their attorneys, Jeffrey and Debra then negotiated and approved a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) enabling Debra to receive $55,000 as a lump-sum payment from Jeffrey's retirement plan. The QDRO stated that Debra, as the "alternate payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the [plan] participant[,] … will be required to pay the applicable federal, state, and local income taxes on such distributions." The circuit court signed the QDRO on March 30. The final judgment of divorce, signed by the commissioner on April 13, 2021, expressly incorporated the MSA by reference along with "the Agreeme


CourtListener opinion 10577699

domestic relations order: t for sale and the equalization payment coming from the net proceeds from the sale of the home. The circuit court commissioner approved the MSA, signing it on March 4, 2021. Through their attorneys, Jeffrey and Debra then negotiated and approved a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) enabling Debra to receive $55,000 as a lump-sum payment from Jeffrey's retirement plan. The QDRO stated that Debra, as the "alternate payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the [plan] participant[,] … will be required to pay the applicable federal, state, and local income taxes on such distributions." The circuit court signed the QDRO on March 3


CourtListener opinion 10578537

CourtListener opinion 10578537 Extracted reporter citation: 634 N.W.2d 852. Docket: 2023AP21 Cir. Ct. No. 2021FA149 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10578537 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 10578537


CourtListener opinion 10578537

QDRO: e, nor does Rebecca argue that she did so. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted. 4 No. 2023AP21 II. Rebecca's 401(k) ¶11 The circuit court divided Rebecca's 401(k) equally between the parties via a qualified domestic relations order. Rebecca contends that "[d]uring the divorce process, both parties agreed to no changes to the [401(k)]," and "[a]ll property division sheets turned [in to] the court by both parties throughout the entire duration of this case show the [401(k)] staying whole and with Rebecca." Rebecca therefore asserts that "[t]his issue was agreed upon and did not require


CourtListener opinion 10578537

401(k): gift or inheritance or purchased that residence using funds acquired by gift or inheritance, nor does Rebecca argue that she did so. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted. 4 No. 2023AP21 II. Rebecca's 401(k) ¶11 The circuit court divided Rebecca's 401(k) equally between the parties via a qualified domestic relations order. Rebecca contends that "[d]uring the divorce process, both parties agreed to no changes to the [401(k)]," and "[a]ll property division sheets turned [in to] the court by both parties throughout the entire duration of this case show the [401(


CourtListener opinion 10578537

domestic relations order: s Rebecca argue that she did so. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise noted. 4 No. 2023AP21 II. Rebecca's 401(k) ¶11 The circuit court divided Rebecca's 401(k) equally between the parties via a qualified domestic relations order. Rebecca contends that "[d]uring the divorce process, both parties agreed to no changes to the [401(k)]," and "[a]ll property division sheets turned [in to] the court by both parties throughout the entire duration of this case show the [401(k)] staying whole and with Rebecca." Rebecca therefore asserts that "[t]his issue was agreed upon and did not require


CourtListener opinion 10578537

valuation/division: rt's discretionary decision if the court makes a rational and reasoned decision and applies the correct legal standard to the facts of record." Id. I. Down payment for the marital home ¶8 The circuit court awarded the parties' marital home to Romero in the property division. Rebecca contends that when the parties purchased the marital home, they used as a down payment the proceeds from the sale of a different residence, which Rebecca had purchased prior to the marriage. Rebecca asserts 3 No. 2023AP21 that the court should have awarded the entire amount of that down payment to her in the property division. ¶9 The circuit


CourtListener opinion 10580864

CourtListener opinion 10580864 Extracted case name: DOC-ADS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE MEMORANDUM. Extracted reporter citation: 994 F.3d 1020. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10580864 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 10580864


CourtListener opinion 10580864

QDRO: t 1028. To the extent McIver also alleges that EBPC, as a Plan3 fiduciary, and Boeing, as a functional fiduciary, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A), were performing fiduciary functions when they continued to charge, deduct, and collect premiums after receiving his Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") notice stating that he was divorced, we conclude that McIver plausibly alleged that EBPC and Boeing were acting as fiduciaries when they continued to collect premiums in 2 According to the Policy, coverage for a dependent, including a "lawful spouse," will terminate on the earliest of, among other things, "the date the person ceases to be a Dep


CourtListener opinion 10580864

ERISA: tting by designation. Procedure 12(b)(6) order dismissing his second amended complaint ("SAC") with prejudice for failing to state a claim. McIver brought this action for breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B), against Appellees the Boeing Company ("Boeing"), Employee Benefit Plans Committee ("EBPC"), and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife"), and a claim for recovery of plan benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) against MetLife.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse and remand in part, and affi


CourtListener opinion 10580864

domestic relations order: To the extent McIver also alleges that EBPC, as a Plan3 fiduciary, and Boeing, as a functional fiduciary, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(21)(A), were performing fiduciary functions when they continued to charge, deduct, and collect premiums after receiving his Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") notice stating that he was divorced, we conclude that McIver plausibly alleged that EBPC and Boeing were acting as fiduciaries when they continued to collect premiums in 2 According to the Policy, coverage for a dependent, including a "lawful spouse," will terminate on the earliest of, among other things, "the date the person ceases to be a Dep


CourtListener opinion 10593929

CourtListener opinion 10593929 Docket: 2014-000864 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10593929 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 10593929

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 10593929

QDRO: decree divided the assets equally between the two parties, however, a subsequent Consent Order signed by both parties established a lump sum of money that husband owed wife. Once husband paid that lump sum, wife obtained a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for an additional share of one of the retirement accounts. Husband challenged that order pursuant to Rules 60(b)(4) and (5) of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court reviews the Court of Appeals' decision regarding the efficacy of the QDRO. I. Facts On December 31, 2002, Joseph A. Marshall filed for a divorce from his long-time wife Car


CourtListener opinion 10593929

retirement benefits: 6, 2015 – Filed June 3, 2015 REVERSED Leon Edward Green, of Leon E. Green, PC, of Aiken, for Petitioner. Gregory P. Harlow, of Harlow Law Offices, PA, of Aiken, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: The subject of this dispute is the distribution of husband's retirement accounts in a divorce proceeding. The final divorce decree divided the assets equally between the two parties, however, a subsequent Consent Order signed by both parties established a lump sum of money that husband owed wife. Once husband paid that lump sum, wife obtained a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) for an additional share of one of the retirement a


CourtListener opinion 10593929

pension: g-time wife Carrie A. Marshall.1 On March 28, 2005, Family Court Judge Tunstall issued a Final Order terminating the marriage. The Final Order determined the division of husband's two retirement accounts. The parties agreed to equally divide husband's Bechtel Pension and 401(k) account. The parties disputed the value of the 401(k) account, but Judge Tunstall valued it at $445,000.00.2 At the time of the order, the Bechtel Pension was valued at $160,000.00. Additionally, the order states, \the husband's savings and investment


CourtListener opinion 10593929

401(k): Carrie A. Marshall.1 On March 28, 2005, Family Court Judge Tunstall issued a Final Order terminating the marriage. The Final Order determined the division of husband's two retirement accounts. The parties agreed to equally divide husband's Bechtel Pension and 401(k) account. The parties disputed the value of the 401(k) account, but Judge Tunstall valued it at $445,000.00.2 At the time of the order, the Bechtel Pension was valued at $160,000.00. Additionally, the order states, \the husband's savings and investment


CourtListener opinion 10595579

CourtListener opinion 10595579 Extracted case name: KISHA DEAN TREZEVANT v. STANLEY H. TREZEVANT. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10595579 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 10595579

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 10595579

domestic relations order: that criminal contempt qualifies as a misdemeanor offense. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-9-103. Wife disagrees that section 40-2-102(a) governs the statute of limitations in this case. Rather, she argues that, because the criminal contempt charges arose out of a domestic relations order, i.e., the January 5, 2021 order dividing the marital estate, that Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-3-110(e) applies. Section 28-3-110(e) provides that, ". . . there is no time within which a judgment or decree in a domestic relations matter issued by a court with domestic relations jurisdiction pursuant to title 36 must be acted upon, unless otherwise s


CourtListener opinion 10596913

CourtListener opinion 10596913 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: 1187 MDA 2023. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10596913 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 10596913


CourtListener opinion 10596913

QDRO: for an immediate transfer because it is impossible to extract a lump sum from a defined benefit pension plan to effectuate equitable distribution. Id. 23-24. She further argues that the trial court cannot simply enter a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to complete the proposed transfer. Id. at 24. Hence, she requests that we reverse the equitable distribution order and remand for the trial court to award to her Husband's defined contribution 401(k) account and supplement that award with additional assets to attain an -9- J-A11032-24 equitable distribution in light in the difference in the value b


CourtListener opinion 10596913

retirement benefits: care.] [Husband] is in mostly good health and capable of employment. [He] is employed full-time working on power lines and responding to emergency calls for PP&L Electric Utilities [("PP&L")]. [His] employment [includes a health benefit package and two retirement accounts: a 401(k) defined contribution plan valued at $84,786.60, as of April 1, 2022 and a defined benefit pension valued at $126,890.00, as of January 17, 2022. He] also is a landlord and receives rental income. Overall, [Husband] was the breadwinner, while [Wife] was the homemaker during their marriage. [Wife] and [Husband] had a good standard of living d


CourtListener opinion 10596913

pension: and responding to emergency calls for PP&L Electric Utilities [("PP&L")]. [His] employment [includes a health benefit package and two retirement accounts: a 401(k) defined contribution plan valued at $84,786.60, as of April 1, 2022 and a defined benefit pension valued at $126,890.00, as of January 17, 2022. He] also is a landlord and receives rental income. Overall, [Husband] was the breadwinner, while [Wife] was the homemaker during their marriage. [Wife] and [Husband] had a good standard of living during their marriage. [Wife's] standard of living has declined since separation, but she is able to save som


CourtListener opinion 10596913

ERISA: ferred distribution method that the trial court utilized in this case. Thus, to the extent that the trial court did not specifically reference the need for a QDRO, and presuming that Husband's pension is subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), upon remand, the trial court must enter a QDRO assigning the designated portion of Husband's pension benefit to Wife as an alternate payee. See 17 West's Pa. Practice, Family Law § 23:4 (8th ed.). However, recognizing that a pension plan "may even provide that a distribution may be made to an alternate payee before the participant (Footnote Continued Next


CourtListener opinion 10598038

CourtListener opinion 10598038 Extracted case name: In re MARRIAGE OF HUSSAIN SALBI. Docket: 2-24-0322 Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10598038 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 10598038


CourtListener opinion 10598038

QDRO: apacity and the ability to continue to save for retirement; and (5) the division of other assets and debt. The Judgment further provides: "[Respondent] or her attorney shall arrange for the prompt preparation and entry of any transfer documents or QDROs [qualified domestic relations orders] to effectuate this division. [Petitioner] shall cooperate in providing account information and executing any necessary documentation. [Respondent] shall be responsible for the related costs. The parties shall equally share in any post-judgment gains and losses prior to the division being effectuated." ¶9 Regarding the minors, Judge Hansen, after


CourtListener opinion 10598038

retirement benefits: awarded $94,515 of the retirement and investment accounts ($46,580.14+($94,543.68/2)+$663.02). ¶8 Judge Hansen noted that the division of the retirement and investment accounts took into -3- 2024 IL App (2d) 240322-U consideration: (1) the value of each retirement account; (2) the parties' present income and economic circumstances; (3) petitioner's higher earnings; (4) that each party has future earning capacity and the ability to continue to save for retirement; and (5) the division of other assets and debt. The Judgment further provides: "[Respondent] or her attorney shall arrange for the prompt preparation and entry


CourtListener opinion 10598038

domestic relations order: d the ability to continue to save for retirement; and (5) the division of other assets and debt. The Judgment further provides: "[Respondent] or her attorney shall arrange for the prompt preparation and entry of any transfer documents or QDROs [qualified domestic relations orders] to effectuate this division. [Petitioner] shall cooperate in providing account information and executing any necessary documentation. [Respondent] shall be responsible for the related costs. The parties shall equally share in any post-judgment gains and losses prior to the division being effectuated." ¶9 Regarding the minors, Judge Hansen, after


CourtListener opinion 10598038

valuation/division: pired after a final order, a petition for indirect civil contempt was not one of these methods. See In re Marriage of Hubbard, 215 Ill. App. 3d at 116-118. As such, the court concluded that it did not have "endless jurisdiction to graft new provisions to a property division contained in a Judgment of Dissolution." Thus, the court determined that it was without power to construct some equitable solution under the guise of enforcement or modification of the Judgment. On May 16, 2024, petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's decision on the Petition to Modify and the Contempt Petition. ¶ 60 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 6


CourtListener opinion 10598423

CourtListener opinion 10598423 Extracted case name: ERNEST J. NEDDER v. LAUREN E. NEDDER. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10598423 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 10598423

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 10598423

pension: ng the assignment of prop- erty and the responsibility for debts when entering an order dissolving a marriage. 2. The defendant could not prevail on her claim that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to assign a value to the plaintiff's quasi-pension account prior to dividing the parties' property: this court presumed that the parties' property interest in the account was considered by the trial court when it made its equitable division of property; moreover, although the court did not state which valuation method it used, it was not required to do so, and, because the defendant failed to file a mo


CourtListener opinion 10598423

401(k): olely for the children's medical expenses,'' (2) the bro- kerage account was ‘‘to be used solely for the children's postsecondary educational expenses,'' and (3) the draw account was ‘‘to be used solely for tax payments in 2022.'' The court ordered that a 401k account belonging to the plaintiff was to be equally divided between the parties, and permitted the plaintiff to retain the IRA and retirement brokerage accounts he had owned prior to the marriage. The court also awarded to the plaintiff an ‘‘RSM Capital Account'' and the PVA account. The court ordered that the defendant was to receive $5034 in weekl


CourtListener opinion 10598423

domestic relations order: unt. The plaintiff testified 3 During the trial, the plaintiff testified that he was fifty-two years old. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 11 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 13 Nedder v. Nedder that, contrary to the defendant's proposal, ‘‘the firm could not do a domestic relations order'' by making payments to her from the PVA account because pay- ments may only be made to those ‘‘in the capacity as owners or partners in the firm,'' and could not be made to the defendant because doing so ‘‘would bring along . . . regulatory issues around [Securities and Exchange Commission] independence, around conflicts, around . . . anything and a


CourtListener opinion 10598423

valuation/division: parties and various other witnesses, includ- ing, inter alia, financial experts for both parties. Both Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Nedder v. Nedder parties filed proposed orders that contained their respective proposals for property division, child sup- port, and alimony. In his proposed orders, the plaintiff requested, inter alia, that he be awarded three accounts—the ‘‘Fidelity HSA #0811'' (health savings account), the ‘‘Ameriprise brokerage #1133'' (brokerage account), and the ‘‘RSM US LLP Draw account'' (draw account)—with the understanding that they would be used for the limited pu


CourtListener opinion 10600942

CourtListener opinion 10600942 Extracted case name: T. S. R. v. J. B. C. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10600942 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 10600942

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 10600942

domestic relations order: notice under subsection (1) of this section, the party served shall file a written response with the court." ORS 107.135(14). And, as set forth above, the applicable UTCRs and the SLRs for Marion County contemplate a "show cause" process for motions to modify domestic relations orders. Father, following that framework, presented the trial court with a motion and proposed order to show cause why the custody judgment should not be modified to grant him parenting time. The motion and proposed order asked the court to make a discretionary call as to whether father's motion and supporting materials met the minimum thresh- old to require mot


CourtListener opinion 10601438

CourtListener opinion 10601438 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10601438 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 10601438


CourtListener opinion 10601438

domestic relations order: with his ability to safely parent" A and S and that he "has sexually abused another child which interferes with his ability to safely parent" A and S. Mother admit- ted that she is unable to protect the children from father's activities due to "the lack of a domestic relations order," and a jurisdictional trial was held to address the allegations against father. For purposes of that trial and to protect his right against self-incrimination in the pending criminal case, father agreed that the court and the parties would "assume that it has been established that [he] engaged in criminal activities and sexual abuse of another child." The


CourtListener opinion 10601667

CourtListener opinion 10601667 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10601667 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 10601667


CourtListener opinion 10601667

QDRO: judgments dividing various deferred compensation accounts between the parties. Husband and wife were divorced in 2004. The trial court issued a dissolution judgment awarding wife half the value of husband's PERS member's account and directed wife to submit a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) to the court. Wife did not submit the QDRO until almost 15 years later, resulting in three sup- plemental judgments. Those judgments awarded wife her share of husband's deferred compensation accounts, a portion of the PERS benefit payments that husband alone had received after his retirement, and a percentage of husband's gross monthly retirement ben


CourtListener opinion 10601667

retirement benefits: ing in three sup- plemental judgments. Those judgments awarded wife her share of husband's deferred compensation accounts, a portion of the PERS benefit payments that husband alone had received after his retirement, and a percentage of husband's gross monthly retirement benefit going forward. On appeal, husband argues that the supplemental judgments are inconsistent with the unambiguous terms of the dissolution judgment, and that the trial court used an incorrect rate of return in calculating the growth of his deferred compensation account. Held: The Court of Appeals concluded that the 2004 dissolution judgment did not unambiguous


CourtListener opinion 10601667

pension: der (QDRO) and retains jurisdiction "over these matters until the intent of this paragraph is car- ried out."1 Wife did not submit a QDRO to the court for 15 years. In the interim, husband retired. He elected to take a "lump sum option 2" payment of his PERS pension benefits; that is, at retirement, PERS paid husband a lump sum based on the amount in his member's account and a monthly ben- efit based on the amount of contributions that his employer 1 Beyond the facts stated in the 2004 dissolution judgment, the record is sparse. The supplemental judgments, which husband challenges, recite some his- torical facts tha


CourtListener opinion 10601667

alternate payee: however, is whether the 2004 dissolution judgment granting wife half his member's account also granted her a share of the asso- ciated benefits. On that issue, the 2003 version of the PERS statutes specified that a dissolution judgment may provide "[t]hat the alternate payee [the member's former spouse] may elect to receive payment in any form of pension, annu- ity, retirement allowance * * * or other benefit [except a joint and survivor annuity] that would be available to the member under this chapter."9 ORS 238.465(2)(b) (2003). The statute also authorized the PERS Board to adopt rules to carry out that legislative intent. Se


CourtListener opinion 10602177

CourtListener opinion 10602177 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10602177 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 10602177


CourtListener opinion 10602177

QDRO: [One] [account], less the sum of $172,516 distributed to [wife]." In their dissolution proceeding, wife was represented by attorney Brown, and husband was represented by attor- ney Johnson. In October 2017, wife hired attorney Williams, a specialist in PERS qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), to draft an order setting forth the terms of the general judgment's division of husband's PERS pension, pursuant to ORS 238.465 (describing requirements for PERS pension payments to an "alternate payee," "to the extent expressly provided for in the terms of any judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation, or the terms of any


CourtListener opinion 10602177

pension: . Deschutes County Circuit Court 13DS0598; A176750 523 P3d 163 In this marital dissolution case, husband appeals from an order of the trial court denying his motion under ORCP 71 A or C to set aside a supplemental judgment dividing with wife his Tier One pension from the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Husband contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to set aside the judgment based on an oversight or omission by the dissolution court or under the court's inherent authority to correct an extraordinary error, because, inconsistent with the parties' general judgment, the supplemental j


CourtListener opinion 10602177

alternate payee: lliams, a specialist in PERS qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), to draft an order setting forth the terms of the general judgment's division of husband's PERS pension, pursuant to ORS 238.465 (describing requirements for PERS pension payments to an "alternate payee," "to the extent expressly provided for in the terms of any judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation, or the terms of any court order or court-approved property set- tlement agreement incident to any judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation"). Williams drafted a QDRO that provides that wife is entitled to $


CourtListener opinion 10602177

domestic relations order: count], less the sum of $172,516 distributed to [wife]." In their dissolution proceeding, wife was represented by attorney Brown, and husband was represented by attor- ney Johnson. In October 2017, wife hired attorney Williams, a specialist in PERS qualified domestic relations orders (QDROs), to draft an order setting forth the terms of the general judgment's division of husband's PERS pension, pursuant to ORS 238.465 (describing requirements for PERS pension payments to an "alternate payee," "to the extent expressly provided for in the terms of any judgment of annulment or dissolution of marriage or of separation, or the terms of any


CourtListener opinion 10602185

CourtListener opinion 10602185 Citation: Domestic Relations Order. Extracted reporter citation: Domestic Relations Order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10602185 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 10602185

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 10602185

QDRO: s- ferred to Wife by the terms of an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order; "1.3 One-half of the martial portion of Husband's Intel Retirement Contribution plan as of December 31, 2018[,] to be transferred to Wife by the terms of an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order; "* * * * * "2. Property Awarded to Husband: "* * * * * "2.2 The remainder of Husband's Intel 401(k) Savings Plan after transfer of Wife's one-half interest in the mari- tal portion of the plan as of December 31, 2018; "2.3 The remainder of Husband's Intel Retirement Contribution plan after transfer of Wife's one-half inter- est in the marital port


CourtListener opinion 10602185

retirement benefits: udge, and Aoyagi, Judge, and Joyce, Judge. JAMES, P. J. Reversed and remanded. 500 Dadu and Dadu JAMES, P. J. This appeal involves the interpretation of a stip- ulated supplemental judgment governing the division of two of husband's defined-contribution retirement accounts. The principal issue is whether wife's marital portion of the accounts includes earnings (defined as gains, losses, divi- dends, and interest) accumulated between the dissolution date and the date of disbursement via Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs). On appeal, husband argues that when the trial court approved wife's proposed QDROs awarding her


CourtListener opinion 10602185

401(k): Nonprecedential Memo Op: 323 Or App 499 (2022) 501 support, custody, and parenting plan issues; however, it left some issues unresolved and, thus, warranted supplemental judgments, including the division of the property at issue in this case—husband's Intel 401(k) Savings Plan and Intel Retirement Contribution Plan. On October 3, 2019, the trial court received both a mediated settlement agreement and exhibits outlining the division of the two accounts. In February 2020, the court entered a supplemental judgment incorporating the settlement terms, which read, in perti- nent part: "1. Property Awarded to Wife: "* * *


CourtListener opinion 10602185

domestic relations order: terms, which read, in perti- nent part: "1. Property Awarded to Wife: "* * * * * "1.2 One-half of the marital portion of Husband's Intel 401(k) Savings Plan as of December 31, 2018[,] to be trans- ferred to Wife by the terms of an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order; "1.3 One-half of the martial portion of Husband's Intel Retirement Contribution plan as of December 31, 2018[,] to be transferred to Wife by the terms of an appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order; "* * * * * "2. Property Awarded to Husband: "* * * * * "2.2 The remainder of Husband's Intel 401(k) Savings Plan after transfer of Wife's one-ha


CourtListener opinion 1060435

CourtListener opinion 1060435 Extracted case name: RICHARD THOMAS BOGAN v. DORIS MAE BOGAN. Extracted reporter citation: 772 S.W.2d 48. Docket: E1998-00060-SC-R11-CV -. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1060435 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 1060435


CourtListener opinion 1060435

QDRO: astman Chemical, and that as a result, he would no longer receive a wage from his employer; and (2) that because of his retirement, Ms. Bogan would no longer need support payments, as she would receive half of his retirement income pursuant to the MDA and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Ms. Bogan answered that because the retirement was voluntary and foreseeable at the time of the MDA, no legally cognizable change in circumstances had occurred warranting modification or termination of the support payments. After holding hearings on the petition on February 19 and April 12, 1998, the chancery court found that Mr. Bogan's retirement was a


CourtListener opinion 1060435

retirement benefits: by encouraging employees to retire2; (2) that Mr. Bogan was qualified for full retirement under Eastman Chemical's then current point system, 1 Most importantly for purposes of this case, the parties agreed to an equal division of the value of Mr. Bo gan's retirement plan as it stood on the date of the d ecree. T his provision was implem ented by a Q ualified Do mestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered on Se ptember 4, 1991. The QD RO named Ms. Bogan as an alternate payee on the Kodak Retirement Income Plan, and it provided that upon Mr. Bogan's retirement and his reaching pay status, M s. Bogan would receive 50 % of the gro ss


CourtListener opinion 1060435

alternate payee: s agreed to an equal division of the value of Mr. Bo gan's retirement plan as it stood on the date of the d ecree. T his provision was implem ented by a Q ualified Do mestic Relations Order (QDRO) entered on Se ptember 4, 1991. The QD RO named Ms. Bogan as an alternate payee on the Kodak Retirement Income Plan, and it provided that upon Mr. Bogan's retirement and his reaching pay status, M s. Bogan would receive 50 % of the gro ss amount o f the monthly retire ment bene fit as calculated o n July 11, 19 91. 2 Concerning the growing dissatisfaction with his job, Mr. Bogan testified that at the time of the divorce, he was empl


CourtListener opinion 1060435

domestic relations order: mical, and that as a result, he would no longer receive a wage from his employer; and (2) that because of his retirement, Ms. Bogan would no longer need support payments, as she would receive half of his retirement income pursuant to the MDA and the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Ms. Bogan answered that because the retirement was voluntary and foreseeable at the time of the MDA, no legally cognizable change in circumstances had occurred warranting modification or termination of the support payments. After holding hearings on the petition on February 19 and April 12, 1998, the chancery court found that Mr. Bogan's retirement was a


CourtListener opinion 1061085

CourtListener opinion 1061085 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061085 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 1061085


CourtListener opinion 1061085

QDRO: rred by (1) receiving parol evidence where the parties' memorandum of agreement (the Agreement) is a fully integrated document into their final decree; (2) modifying the terms of the Agreement where there is no ambiguity; and (3) ordering the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) when the trial court had no jurisdiction to do so because the final divorce did not provide for the entry of a QDRO. We find no error, and affirm the decision of the trial court. BACKGROUND On October 13, 1984, the parties married, and on March 2, 2005, the parties separated. With the assistance of a mediator, the parties reached an agreeme


CourtListener opinion 1061085

pension: his opinion is not designated for publication. parties signed the Agreement, which included the following provision: "Wife shall receive 40% of the General Motors retirement and 40% of the United States Marine Corps retirement with a cap at $2,500 for each pension. In the event Wife remarries, the USMC pension shall be forfeited." The parties divorced in 2006, and the Agreement was incorporated into the final decree of divorce.1 Husband subsequently gave wife a check for $2,500 for her share of the General Motors retirement. Wife did not deposit the check and, instead, filed a motion with the trial court seekin


CourtListener opinion 1061085

domestic relations order: ) receiving parol evidence where the parties' memorandum of agreement (the Agreement) is a fully integrated document into their final decree; (2) modifying the terms of the Agreement where there is no ambiguity; and (3) ordering the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) when the trial court had no jurisdiction to do so because the final divorce did not provide for the entry of a QDRO. We find no error, and affirm the decision of the trial court. BACKGROUND On October 13, 1984, the parties married, and on March 2, 2005, the parties separated. With the assistance of a mediator, the parties reached an agreeme


CourtListener opinion 1061165

CourtListener opinion 1061165 Docket: of the court to monitor Husband. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061165 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 1061165


CourtListener opinion 1061165

QDRO: tinued on the docket of the court to monitor Husband's cash payment of the equitable distribution award totaling $56,118.45 and payment of attorney's fees as set forth hereinabove; and pending entry of a Military Pension Division Order and the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order. We disagree with husband and find that the January 12, 2011 order was a final order, and since husband did not appeal the January 12, 2011 order, he cannot argue now that the trial court erred in its equitable distribution award. "The question of whether a particular order is a final judgment is a question of law that we review de novo." Carrithers


CourtListener opinion 1061165

pension: following language: And this cause is continued on the docket of the court to monitor Husband's cash payment of the equitable distribution award totaling $56,118.45 and payment of attorney's fees as set forth hereinabove; and pending entry of a Military Pension Division Order and the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order. We disagree with husband and find that the January 12, 2011 order was a final order, and since husband did not appeal the January 12, 2011 order, he cannot argue now that the trial court erred in its equitable distribution award. "The question of whether a particular order is a fi


CourtListener opinion 1061165

domestic relations order: the docket of the court to monitor Husband's cash payment of the equitable distribution award totaling $56,118.45 and payment of attorney's fees as set forth hereinabove; and pending entry of a Military Pension Division Order and the appropriate Qualified Domestic Relations Order. We disagree with husband and find that the January 12, 2011 order was a final order, and since husband did not appeal the January 12, 2011 order, he cannot argue now that the trial court erred in its equitable distribution award. "The question of whether a particular order is a final judgment is a question of law that we review de novo." Carrithers


CourtListener opinion 1061165

valuation/division: ND The parties married on October 23, 1968 and separated on January 24, 2008. Wife filed a complaint for divorce, to which husband filed an answer and cross-complaint. On December 2, 2010, the trial court heard the parties' evidence and argument regarding equitable distribution and spousal support. On January 12, 2011, the trial court entered a "Decree of Divorce, Equitable Distribution and Spousal Support." The trial court found that husband's brother loaned them $65,000 and that the loan was attached to the former marital residence. The trial court held that wife was responsible for twenty-five percent, or $16,250, of that l


CourtListener opinion 1061209

CourtListener opinion 1061209 Docket: in order to make the terms of the retirement or pen. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061209 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 1061209

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 1061209

QDRO: Szabo; The Condo Law Group, P.C., on briefs), for appellant. John P. Forest, II (StahlZelloe, P.C., on brief), for appellee. Susan W. Forest (wife) appeals the trial court's order finding that it lacked authority under Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) or to modify the final decree of divorce between wife and Christopher M. Forest (husband) so as to permit entry of wife's requested QDRO. John P. Forest, II, Esq. (executor) 1 has represented husband's * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 1 Executor argues that this appeal must be dismissed due to wh


CourtListener opinion 1061209

retirement benefits: On June 27, 2011, the trial court entered a final decree of divorce between Mr. and Mrs. Forest, which incorporated the provisions of their May 5, 2011 marital settlement agreement 3 (MSA). 4 The portion of the MSA that is pertinent to this appeal states: RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS 15. a. (i) The Wife's individual retirement account (IRA) and the Husband's 401(K) plan, shall be equalized through a transfer from the Husband's 401(k) plan of the amount necessary to effect such equalization, based on the values as of the date of the separation, to-wit: April 1, 2010, plus any appreciation or less any depreciation from the date of


CourtListener opinion 1061209

pension: he Deseret Mutual QDRO. Wife contended that Code § 20-107.3(K)(4) permits modification of a final decree so long as the modification reflects the expressed intent of the final decree. 8 Wife also argues on appeal that the trial court erred under the federal Pension Protection Act of 2006 when it refused to enter the Deseret Mutual QDRO. The trial court expressly declined to consider whether the Deseret Mutual QDRO could be entered under federal law – given its finding that this QDRO could not be entered under Virginia law. On remand, the trial court will have the opportunity to consider the propriety of entering the D


CourtListener opinion 1061209

401(k): hich incorporated the provisions of their May 5, 2011 marital settlement agreement 3 (MSA). 4 The portion of the MSA that is pertinent to this appeal states: RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS 15. a. (i) The Wife's individual retirement account (IRA) and the Husband's 401(K) plan, shall be equalized through a transfer from the Husband's 401(k) plan of the amount necessary to effect such equalization, based on the values as of the date of the separation, to-wit: April 1, 2010, plus any appreciation or less any depreciation from the date of separation to the time of transfer, said transfer to be effected through the entry of


CourtListener opinion 10614111

CourtListener opinion 10614111 Docket: 2011-186667. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10614111 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 10614111


CourtListener opinion 10614111

QDRO: ) ordering Husband to pay all of Respondent Sarah Jo Gaylord's (Wife) attorney's fees and costs; (6) finding Husband in willful contempt of court and providing the sole remedy through which Husband could purge himself of contempt was payment of $189,016.21 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his retirement accounts; and (7) awarding Wife $2,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. We affirm. 1. As to whether the family court erred in apportioning the marital estate, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court properly considered all fifteen statutory factors and the apportionment was both fair and equitable. See Reiss v. R


CourtListener opinion 10614111

retirement benefits: Sarah Jo Gaylord's (Wife) attorney's fees and costs; (6) finding Husband in willful contempt of court and providing the sole remedy through which Husband could purge himself of contempt was payment of $189,016.21 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his retirement accounts; and (7) awarding Wife $2,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. We affirm. 1. As to whether the family court erred in apportioning the marital estate, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court properly considered all fifteen statutory factors and the apportionment was both fair and equitable. See Reiss v. Reiss, 392 S.C. 198, 211, 708


CourtListener opinion 10614111

domestic relations order: Husband to pay all of Respondent Sarah Jo Gaylord's (Wife) attorney's fees and costs; (6) finding Husband in willful contempt of court and providing the sole remedy through which Husband could purge himself of contempt was payment of $189,016.21 by Qualified Domestic Relations Order from his retirement accounts; and (7) awarding Wife $2,500 per month in permanent periodic alimony. We affirm. 1. As to whether the family court erred in apportioning the marital estate, we find no abuse of discretion because the family court properly considered all fifteen statutory factors and the apportionment was both fair and equitable. See Reiss v. R


CourtListener opinion 1061765

CourtListener opinion 1061765 Extracted case name: L.P. v. PRC. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061765 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 1061765


CourtListener opinion 1061765

QDRO: ), for appellant. Amy N. Tobias (David M. Levy; Stephens, Boatwright, Cooper, Coleman & Newton, P.C.; Surovell Isaacs Petersen & Levy PLC, on brief), for appellee. James Carlton Craig, Jr., appellant/husband, appeals the trial court's modification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which addressed the division of appellant's civil service retirement annuity. He contends the trial court erred by: (1) determining it had the jurisdiction to modify that order; (2) allowing Thelma Ruth Markham Craig, wife, to testify about the terms of the property settlement agreement (PSA), in violation of the parol evidence rule; (3) determi


CourtListener opinion 1061765

retirement benefits: part. BACKGROUND The parties were divorced by final decree entered January 29, 2009, which decree affirmed, ratified, and incorporated the PSA, without being merged into the decree. The PSA provided, inter alia, for the division of husband's pension and retirement benefits: 11. HUSBAND'S Pension and Retirement Benefits: The WIFE shall receive thirty seven and one-half percent (37.5%) of the HUSBAND's gross monthly annuity with the Civil Service Retirement System (hereinafter "CSRS"). The WIFE shall receive the maximum Former Spouse Survivor Annuity (FSSA) available to her under law with respect to the HUSBAND's Civil


CourtListener opinion 1061765

pension: reverse in part. BACKGROUND The parties were divorced by final decree entered January 29, 2009, which decree affirmed, ratified, and incorporated the PSA, without being merged into the decree. The PSA provided, inter alia, for the division of husband's pension and retirement benefits: 11. HUSBAND'S Pension and Retirement Benefits: The WIFE shall receive thirty seven and one-half percent (37.5%) of the HUSBAND's gross monthly annuity with the Civil Service Retirement System (hereinafter "CSRS"). The WIFE shall receive the maximum Former Spouse Survivor Annuity (FSSA) available to her under law with respect


CourtListener opinion 1061765

domestic relations order: ellant. Amy N. Tobias (David M. Levy; Stephens, Boatwright, Cooper, Coleman & Newton, P.C.; Surovell Isaacs Petersen & Levy PLC, on brief), for appellee. James Carlton Craig, Jr., appellant/husband, appeals the trial court's modification of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), which addressed the division of appellant's civil service retirement annuity. He contends the trial court erred by: (1) determining it had the jurisdiction to modify that order; (2) allowing Thelma Ruth Markham Craig, wife, to testify about the terms of the property settlement agreement (PSA), in violation of the parol evidence rule; (3) determi


CourtListener opinion 10617652

CourtListener opinion 10617652 Docket: 2016-001265. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10617652 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 10617652


CourtListener opinion 10617652

QDRO: habel, of Kennedy & Brannon, P.A., and W. Barry Bland, both of Spartanburg, for Appellant. Hattie Darlene Evans Boyce, of Spartanburg, for Respondent. SHORT, J.: Christopher M. Higgins (Husband) appeals the family court's decision to (1) order an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would require him to pay an additional $61,196.16 to Paula E. Higgins (Wife) over what he already paid pursuant to a prior QDRO that had been signed by the parties and approved by the family court and (2) hold him responsible for any legal fees incurred in the preparation of the amended QDRO. On appeal, Husband argues the family court (1) shoul


CourtListener opinion 10617652

retirement benefits: nor child and the division of the parties' marital debts and property. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, Judge Bridges ordered the following regarding equitable distribution of the marital property: That [Wife] shall receive $182,500.00 from [Husband's] retirement account, and said amount shall constitute her entire equitable apportionment from his account. [Husband] shall retain any and all balances in his retirement/401k accounts over and above said $182,500.00 allocated to [Wife]. The division shall be done by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), with the parties each being responsible for 50% of the


CourtListener opinion 10617652

401(k): ution of the marital property: That [Wife] shall receive $182,500.00 from [Husband's] retirement account, and said amount shall constitute her entire equitable apportionment from his account. [Husband] shall retain any and all balances in his retirement/401k accounts over and above said $182,500.00 allocated to [Wife]. The division shall be done by way of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), with the parties each being responsible for 50% of the legal costs associated with the preparation of said QDRO. On July 1, 2015, the parties appeared again before Judge Bridges on a motion filed by Wife for a


CourtListener opinion 10617652

domestic relations order: Kennedy & Brannon, P.A., and W. Barry Bland, both of Spartanburg, for Appellant. Hattie Darlene Evans Boyce, of Spartanburg, for Respondent. SHORT, J.: Christopher M. Higgins (Husband) appeals the family court's decision to (1) order an amended Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that would require him to pay an additional $61,196.16 to Paula E. Higgins (Wife) over what he already paid pursuant to a prior QDRO that had been signed by the parties and approved by the family court and (2) hold him responsible for any legal fees incurred in the preparation of the amended QDRO. On appeal, Husband argues the family court (1) shoul


CourtListener opinion 10617842

CourtListener opinion 10617842 Docket: 2016-002169. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10617842 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 10617842

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 10617842

QDRO: Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and divided the marital estate, awarding Wife sixty percent and Husband the remaining forty percent. As such, the family court ordered Wife to pay $206,703 of her Sonoco 401(K) plan to Husband by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In addition, the family court ordered Wife to contribute $5,000 toward Husband's attorney's fees and costs. Wife filed a motion to reconsider on August 10, 2016. The family court denied Wife's motion in an order filed September 23, 2016. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW \[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo.\"


CourtListener opinion 10617842

401(k): paration. The family court awarded Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and divided the marital estate, awarding Wife sixty percent and Husband the remaining forty percent. As such, the family court ordered Wife to pay $206,703 of her Sonoco 401(K) plan to Husband by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In addition, the family court ordered Wife to contribute $5,000 toward Husband's attorney's fees and costs. Wife filed a motion to reconsider on August 10, 2016. The family court denied Wife's motion in an order filed September 23, 2016. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW \[T]he p


CourtListener opinion 10617842

domestic relations order: ,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and divided the marital estate, awarding Wife sixty percent and Husband the remaining forty percent. As such, the family court ordered Wife to pay $206,703 of her Sonoco 401(K) plan to Husband by way of a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). In addition, the family court ordered Wife to contribute $5,000 toward Husband's attorney's fees and costs. Wife filed a motion to reconsider on August 10, 2016. The family court denied Wife's motion in an order filed September 23, 2016. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW \[T]he proper standard of review in family court matters is de novo.\"


CourtListener opinion 10617842

valuation/division: , of Florence, and Marian Dawn Nettles, of Nettles Turbeville & Reddeck, of Lake City, for Respondent. LOCKEMY, C.J.: Alicia M. Rudick (Wife) appeals a family court order claiming the family court improperly valued several marital assets and therefore, the equitable distribution award to Brian R. Rudick (Husband) is incorrect. In addition, Wife argues the family court erred in awarding Husband $3,000 per month in permanent periodic alimony and this court should reverse the award of attorney's fees to Husband. We affirm in part and reverse in part. FACTS Husband and Wife married in 1999 and have three minor children together. Throu


CourtListener opinion 1061808

CourtListener opinion 1061808 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Rife. Extracted reporter citation: 555 U.S. 285. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061808 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 1061808


CourtListener opinion 1061808

QDRO: s (Jessica L. Leischner; Lieblich & Grimes, P.C., on brief), for appellant. No brief or argument for appellee. In this domestic relations proceeding, the circuit court in its final order of divorce denied a motion by Cheyep Nkopchieu (mother) to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) permitting her to attach a retirement account belonging to Raymond Bernard Minlend (father) for the sole purpose of paying father's very considerable child support arrearage of over $28,000. On appeal, we hold that the circuit court committed reversible error when it found that it was constrained by this Court's decision in Hoy v. Hoy, 29 Va. App


CourtListener opinion 1061808

retirement benefits: llant. No brief or argument for appellee. In this domestic relations proceeding, the circuit court in its final order of divorce denied a motion by Cheyep Nkopchieu (mother) to enter a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) permitting her to attach a retirement account belonging to Raymond Bernard Minlend (father) for the sole purpose of paying father's very considerable child support arrearage of over $28,000. On appeal, we hold that the circuit court committed reversible error when it found that it was constrained by this Court's decision in Hoy v. Hoy, 29 Va. App. 115, 510 S.E.2d 253 (1999). The record on appeal e


CourtListener opinion 1061808

pension: domestic relations order." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3); see Wilson v. Wilson, 18 Va. App. 193, 200, 442 S.E.2d 694, 698 (1994) ("Under federal law, qualified domestic relations orders are an exception to ERISA's proscription against alienation and assignment of pension benefits."). ERISA states that "[e]ach pension plan shall provide for the payment of benefits in accordance with the applicable requirements of any qualified domestic relations order." 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). According to 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3)(B)(i), a "qualified domestic relations order" is a domestic relations order (I) "which creates or recognizes


CourtListener opinion 1061808

ERISA: hing father's retirement account. We find that neither Hoy nor any other provision of Virginia domestic relations law deprived the circuit court of authority to enter a QDRO pursuant to the procedures of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Therefore, we reverse the portion of the circuit court's final order of divorce denying mother's motion for entry of a QDRO and remand the matter to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND Mother and father were married in Virginia on February 23, 2009, approximately eleven months after the birth of the


CourtListener opinion 10619558

CourtListener opinion 10619558 Docket: 2021-000110. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 10619558 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 10619558


CourtListener opinion 10619558

QDRO: lson, of Wilson & Englebardt, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Appellant Sharon S. McMillan (Wife) appeals the family court's order interpreting a divorce decree's provision for the equitable division of a retirement account and the resulting qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) the family court signed. Wife argues the family court erred in issuing a QDRO more than ten years after the entry of the divorce decree. Wife also argues that even if issuing the QDRO was proper, the family court erred in its interpretation of the division of the retirement account. Finally, Wife argues the family court erred in excluding witness te


CourtListener opinion 10619558

retirement benefits: ville, for Appellant. David Alan Wilson, of Wilson & Englebardt, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Appellant Sharon S. McMillan (Wife) appeals the family court's order interpreting a divorce decree's provision for the equitable division of a retirement account and the resulting qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) the family court signed. Wife argues the family court erred in issuing a QDRO more than ten years after the entry of the divorce decree. Wife also argues that even if issuing the QDRO was proper, the family court erred in its interpretation of the division of the retirement account. Finally, Wife


CourtListener opinion 10619558

401(k): er dated July 1, 2010 (Divorce Decree), the family court granted Wife and Respondent David A. Miller (Husband) a divorce. In the same order, the family court ordered Wife's South Carolina Retirement account (PEBA Account) and Husband's American Funds account (401(k) Account) be \equally divided


CourtListener opinion 10619558

domestic relations order: ilson & Englebardt, LLC, of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Appellant Sharon S. McMillan (Wife) appeals the family court's order interpreting a divorce decree's provision for the equitable division of a retirement account and the resulting qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) the family court signed. Wife argues the family court erred in issuing a QDRO more than ten years after the entry of the divorce decree. Wife also argues that even if issuing the QDRO was proper, the family court erred in its interpretation of the division of the retirement account. Finally, Wife argues the family court erred in excluding witness te


CourtListener opinion 1061958

CourtListener opinion 1061958 Extracted reporter citation: 165 S.W.3d 322. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 1061958 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 1061958


CourtListener opinion 1061958

QDRO: eed to take to "enforce [its] judgments and protect [its] dignity." 17 Matsumoto, 792 A.2d at 1227. We therefore affirm the trial court's decision to permit wife to participate via telephonic deposition instead of requiring her to appear in person. E. The QDRO and the Trial Court's Final Decree In his final assignment of error, husband contends that the trial court erred by entering a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) that altered the final decree's valuation of the marital share of husband's GE Savings and Security Plan (the "Plan"). 18 In its final decree, the trial court stated: Ms. Prizzia shal


CourtListener opinion 1061958

retirement benefits: tion plan is typically accomplished by tracing separately contributed funds." (citation omitted)); see also Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property § 6:24 (3d ed. 2005) (explaining why "[i]t is generally error to classify a defined contribution retirement plan using the time-based coverture fraction used to classify defined benefit plans," and why "[a]pplication of a time-based coverture to defined contribution plans creates a significant risk of reaching unjust results"). The trial court's final decree defined the Plan's marital share as the amount of money that accrued between two specific dates—"that whic