CourtListener opinion 10920316

ERISA: infeldt's estate and Scholz's estate. ANALYSIS The question before the court is which defendant is the proper beneficiary of Kleinfeldt's 401k plan. The 401k plan is an employee benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement and Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), so this court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1). Both Langdon and Kleinfeldt's estate have moved for summary judgment. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986


CourtListener opinion 11013086

CourtListener opinion 11013086 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11013086 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 11013086

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 11013086

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


CourtListener opinion 11013086

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


CourtListener opinion 11013086

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


CourtListener opinion 11016649

CourtListener opinion 11016649 Extracted case name: LLC v. NTE. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Docket: COA24-183. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11016649 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 11016649


CourtListener opinion 11016649

QDRO: y[.]" The Consent Order set out provisions regarding the sale of the former marital residence and distribution of the net proceeds; distribution of various items of marital property, including a direction for entry of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to distribute a retirement account; joint legal custody of the minor children; temporary physical custody including a detailed weekly schedule; a direction for preparation of an order appointing a named GAL "to help . . . resolve the issue of permanent custody[ ]"; and waiver of Plaintiff's claims for post- separation support or alimony. On 17 July


CourtListener opinion 11016649

retirement benefits: set out provisions regarding the sale of the former marital residence and distribution of the net proceeds; distribution of various items of marital property, including a direction for entry of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to distribute a retirement account; joint legal custody of the minor children; temporary physical custody including a detailed weekly schedule; a direction for preparation of an order appointing a named GAL "to help . . . resolve the issue of permanent custody[ ]"; and waiver of Plaintiff's claims for post- separation support or alimony. On 17 July 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended moti


CourtListener opinion 11016649

domestic relations order: ustody hearing if necessary[.]" The Consent Order set out provisions regarding the sale of the former marital residence and distribution of the net proceeds; distribution of various items of marital property, including a direction for entry of a qualified domestic relations order ("QDRO") to distribute a retirement account; joint legal custody of the minor children; temporary physical custody including a detailed weekly schedule; a direction for preparation of an order appointing a named GAL "to help . . . resolve the issue of permanent custody[ ]"; and waiver of Plaintiff's claims for post- separation support or alimony. On 1


CourtListener opinion 11016649

valuation/division: in 2003 and separated in December 2015. The parties had three children together during their marriage. On 29 January 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant asserting claims for child custody, child support, post-separation support and alimony, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees. Defendant filed her answer and counterclaim on 3 March 2016. The trial court entered a Consent Order on 18 August 2016. This Consent Order indicated the parties "had reached a full settlement on the issues of temporary custody, post-separation support, alimony, equitable distribution and attorney's fees, although the parties rese


CourtListener opinion 11049046

CourtListener opinion 11049046 Extracted reporter citation: 323 F.3d 32. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11049046 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 11049046


CourtListener opinion 11049046

QDRO: ss comprising "all persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." ECF 96-2, at 7, § 1.46. The proposed class excludes the defendants and their beneficiaries. Id. The "Class Period" is defined as "the period from January 18, 2016, through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court." Id. at 3, § 1.13. The plaintiffs have established


CourtListener opinion 11049046

ERISA: ospital Corporation, its Board of Directors, its Retirement Committee, and unknown Does—breached certain fiduciary duties owed to the Children's Hospital Corporation Tax-Deferred Annuity Plan (the "Plan") under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq. The complaint alleges that the defendants retained imprudent investments and permitted the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees after failing to properly monitor those investments and fees. Following extensive discovery, the parties engaged in private mediation and agreed upon settlement terms. Pending before the Court


CourtListener opinion 11049046

domestic relations order: ing "all persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a [Qualified Domestic Relations Order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period." ECF 96-2, at 7, § 1.46. The proposed class excludes the defendants and their beneficiaries. Id. The "Class Period" is defined as "the period from January 18, 2016, through the date the Preliminary Approval Order is entered by the Court." Id. at 3, § 1.13. The plaintiffs have established


CourtListener opinion 11054857

CourtListener opinion 11054857 Extracted reporter citation: 828 A.2d 376. Docket: 1272 WDA 2024. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11054857 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 11054857


CourtListener opinion 11054857

QDRO: ch would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received a reduced monthly benefit than if had made an election to give his Wife less than the 100% survivor benefit. According to QDRO GROUP evaluation contained in Defendant's Exhibit 34, and the testimony of the pension appraiser Lance Melin, the marital portion of the retirement benefit was valued at $29,061.96 with Wife's portion of her survivor benefit valued at $18,906.61. If Wife receives 50% of the marital portion of the retirement benefit without any offset of her survivorshi


CourtListener opinion 11054857

retirement benefits: Medicare parts A and B which she pays $174.76 per month. Husband was employed with Tyco Electronics from December of 1968 through retirement in January of 1999 where he earned a pension. Thirteen years of his pension is deemed marital. Husband's monthly retirement benefit is $599.91. At the time of his retirement, Husband made an election to provide his Wife with a 100% irrevocable survivor benefit which would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received a reduced monthly benefit than if had made an election to give his Wife less than the 1


CourtListener opinion 11054857

pension: e not covered by any insurance. Wife has had three back surgeries. Wife has Medicare parts A and B which she pays $174.76 per month. Husband was employed with Tyco Electronics from December of 1968 through retirement in January of 1999 where he earned a pension. Thirteen years of his pension is deemed marital. Husband's monthly retirement benefit is $599.91. At the time of his retirement, Husband made an election to provide his Wife with a 100% irrevocable survivor benefit which would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received


CourtListener opinion 11054857

survivor benefits: retirement in January of 1999 where he earned a pension. Thirteen years of his pension is deemed marital. Husband's monthly retirement benefit is $599.91. At the time of his retirement, Husband made an election to provide his Wife with a 100% irrevocable survivor benefit which would provide her with the same benefit of $599.91 -2- J-S15004-25 upon his passing. This election meant that Husband received a reduced monthly benefit than if had made an election to give his Wife less than the 100% survivor benefit. According to QDRO GROUP evaluation contained in Defendant's Exhibit 34, and the testimony of the pension ap


CourtListener opinion 11055831

CourtListener opinion 11055831 Extracted reporter citation: 828 A.2d 376. Docket: 1272 WDA 2024. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11055831 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 11055831

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 11055831


CourtListener opinion 11060571

CourtListener opinion 11060571 Extracted case name: In re the Marriage of Yolanda and Damon Williams. YOLANDA WILLIAMS. Extracted reporter citation: 97 Cal.App.4th 847. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11060571 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 11060571


CourtListener opinion 11060571

QDRO: l Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.) 2 We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended. (See Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 947, fn. 6.) 2008, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered in these proceedings providing for the division of Yolanda's community property interest in Damon's retirement benefits with the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System (SFERS). Under the QDRO, Yolanda's benefits are to be determined by various future employment events and related elections. Yolanda died in August 2008, without ha


CourtListener opinion 11060571

retirement benefits: nfusion. No disrespect is intended. (See Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 947, fn. 6.) 2008, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered in these proceedings providing for the division of Yolanda's community property interest in Damon's retirement benefits with the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System (SFERS). Under the QDRO, Yolanda's benefits are to be determined by various future employment events and related elections. Yolanda died in August 2008, without having made any elections regarding her community property interest in Damon's retirement benefits. Under the terms of the 2008 order, "if No


CourtListener opinion 11060571

pension: Code sections 2073 and 2074. 5 In support of his claim, Damon quotes from two paragraphs in the court's order. The first explains that Damon requested the Termination Order because he "wished to discontinue the portion of the retirement allowance from his pension that had been allocated to his late spouse, Petitioner Yolanda Williams in order to increase his own retirement pension benefit" and that he "believed that her retirement benefit under the QDRO expired upon her death." The second reads, "Respondent is mistaken. . . . His position demonstrates an imperfect understanding of how the QDRO works via-a-vis the co


CourtListener opinion 11060571

domestic relations order: ration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853–855.) 2 We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid confusion. No disrespect is intended. (See Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 947, fn. 6.) 2008, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) was entered in these proceedings providing for the division of Yolanda's community property interest in Damon's retirement benefits with the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System (SFERS). Under the QDRO, Yolanda's benefits are to be determined by various future employment events and related elections. Yolanda died in August 2008, without ha


CourtListener opinion 11060618

CourtListener opinion 11060618 Extracted case name: HEATHER MARIE BAILEY v. DANIEL MICHAEL BAILEY. Extracted reporter citation: 414 S.W.3d 685. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11060618 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 11060618


CourtListener opinion 11060618

QDRO: y division and making a child support determination, the trial court stated, "[e]ach party shall receive Fifty 8 Percent (50%) of the other's pensions and retirement accounts on the date of this decision. These awards should be accomplished by the use of a QDRO[(qualified domestic relations order)] or other advantageous means." The trial court concluded by denying an award of attorney's fees in the case "[b]ased on the equities of the case, availability of money, and the fault of the divorce." Both parties expressed dissatisfaction with the sufficiency of the trial court's order. The record reflects that Father


CourtListener opinion 11060618

retirement benefits: her attorney's fees on appeal. Turning to the underlying circumstances of this case, before the parties married, Father became a professional engineer and worked for the Murfreesboro Electrical Department. Father started toward a pension and opened a 401(k) retirement account, contributing to that account for three years before marrying Mother. During this time, Mother was a teacher in Rutherford County while parenting two children from a prior marriage (the Stepchildren), whom Father helped to raise throughout their marriage. When Mother gave birth to the couple's first shared child in 2014, her employment became "a huge poin


CourtListener opinion 11060618

pension: V-9505 L. Craig Johnson, Judge1 ___________________________________ No. M2022-01467-COA-R3-CV ___________________________________ Father and Mother divorced. In ruling upon various matters contested by the parties, the trial court evenly divided Father's pension without determining whether a portion was separate property, awarded Mother rehabilitative alimony, and named Mother as the primary residential parent. Father appeals, asserting error as to all three determinations. We conclude that the trial court erred in failing to treat the pre-marriage portion of the pension as separate property. As for the trial court


CourtListener opinion 11060618

401(k): seeks her attorney's fees on appeal. Turning to the underlying circumstances of this case, before the parties married, Father became a professional engineer and worked for the Murfreesboro Electrical Department. Father started toward a pension and opened a 401(k) retirement account, contributing to that account for three years before marrying Mother. During this time, Mother was a teacher in Rutherford County while parenting two children from a prior marriage (the Stepchildren), whom Father helped to raise throughout their marriage. When Mother gave birth to the couple's first shared child in 2014, her employment


CourtListener opinion 11064113

CourtListener opinion 11064113 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11064113 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 11064113


CourtListener opinion 11064113

QDRO: S. Grossman, and John H. Cousins, for appellee. Argued: John H. Cousins. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations BOGGS, J. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Carrie E. Hardie (formerly, Carrie E. Dutton), appeals a Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") issued by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, in her action for divorce from defendant- appellee, Thomas E. Dutton. However, we dismiss this appeal because Carrie did not file a timely appeal of the underlying divorce decree, the QDRO is not an independent final order, and Carrie has not sought a finding or re


CourtListener opinion 11064113

retirement benefits: decree of divorce ("divorce decree") on February 2, 2024. In the divorce decree, the trial court described the Plan and its status as marital or separate property: [Thomas] has an interest in the Jones Day Qualified Defined Benefit Plan. The portion of this retirement plan earned prior to the marriage and any accruals thereon are [Thomas's] separate property. All benefits earned and accruals thereon after the date of the parties' marriage through June 30, 2022 are marital. (Feb 2, 2024 Jgmt. Entry/Decree of Divorce at 17.) The trial court noted in the divorce decree that the Plan is "subject to a QDRO which has been issu


CourtListener opinion 11064113

pension: arrie has not sought a finding or resolution of ambiguity in the divorce decree from the trial court. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND {¶ 2} This appeal concerns the trial court's distribution of a single, albeit significant, asset—Thomas's defined-benefit pension plan (the "Plan") sponsored by the No. 24AP-286 2 Jones Day law firm, of which Thomas is a partner. Thomas entered the Plan in 1992. The plan offers a lifetime monthly benefit upon retirement. {¶ 3} Carrie and Thomas married in November 2011. It was a second marriage for both. Thomas's previous marriage to Susan Dutton was dissolved in 2010, and as part


CourtListener opinion 11064113

ERISA: prepare a QDRO "as proposed by the Jones Day Qualified Defined Benefit Plan Model QDRO with No. 24AP-286 6 changes/inclusions as specifically ordered herein." Id. at 39. Private pension plans that qualify under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq., are subject to restrictions, including that benefits may not be assigned or alienated other than through a QDRO. Taylor v. Taylor, 44 Ohio St.3d 61, 62 (1989), citing 29 U.S.C. 1056(d)(3). A QDRO "is an order ‘which creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to, or assigns to an alternative payee the right


CourtListener opinion 11065913

CourtListener opinion 11065913 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Vaughn. Extracted reporter citation: 433 S.W.3d 523. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11065913 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 11065913

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 11065913

QDRO: owns should go to him. Doris also requested a fishing boat to "even out the value[,]" received by herself and Marvin in the divorce. Doris confirmed that she had not sold or liquidated any property under her control in the last four years. She requested a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between their retirement accounts, considering their years of service before they were married. During cross-examination, Doris testified that at the time she filed for divorce she was working in Clear Lake during the week. According to Doris, when she filed for divorce, she was living in "a house in the country with Marvin," but denied that sh


CourtListener opinion 11065913

retirement benefits: oat to "even out the value[,]" received by herself and Marvin in the divorce. Doris confirmed that she had not sold or liquidated any property under her control in the last four years. She requested a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between their retirement accounts, considering their years of service before they were married. During cross-examination, Doris testified that at the time she filed for divorce she was working in Clear Lake during the week. According to Doris, when she filed for divorce, she was living in "a house in the country with Marvin," but denied that she was living in "the city." Doris testif


CourtListener opinion 11065913

domestic relations order: ld go to him. Doris also requested a fishing boat to "even out the value[,]" received by herself and Marvin in the divorce. Doris confirmed that she had not sold or liquidated any property under her control in the last four years. She requested a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) between their retirement accounts, considering their years of service before they were married. During cross-examination, Doris testified that at the time she filed for divorce she was working in Clear Lake during the week. According to Doris, when she filed for divorce, she was living in "a house in the country with Marvin," but denied that sh


CourtListener opinion 11065913

valuation/division: . When Marvin was at the hotel, he would tell Doris that he was working late or dealing with a rental property. Doris testified that Marvin denied having an affair. Doris asked the trial court to consider her income versus Marvin's income when making the property division. She requested that the rental properties, owned in part by third parties, go to Marvin, because the rental properties were his thing, and she believed selling and dividing the rental properties would be acrimonious. Doris requested the real property with the farms and the cows be awarded to her. She testified she worked the farm with Marvin, including


CourtListener opinion 11066538

CourtListener opinion 11066538 Extracted case name: KIM DIXON SMITH v. KEVIN JAY SMITH. Extracted reporter citation: 453 U.S. 210. Docket: 03-C-97-009400 REPORTED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11066538 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 11066538


CourtListener opinion 11066538

QDRO: aryland Rule 2-535. Id. at 678-79. Mr. Leadroot, following his divorce, had purchased back a period of his retirement contribution, which he had cashed in to use for work-related moving expenses during his marriage to Ms. Leadroot. Id. at 675. The original qualified domestic relations order in Leadroot included a fractional equation that used the months of marriage for the numerator and total months of service for the denominator. Id. at 676-77. The trial court in Leadroot thus edited the fraction to include the redeemed months for the denominator but did not add back the time to the numerator. 11 Id. The trial court intended for this de


CourtListener opinion 11066538

retirement benefits: ompute the marital portion of the retired pay award because there was no finding of fraud, mistake, or irregularity in the 1999 constituted pension order. DIVORCE – MILITARY RETIREMENT – PENSION OR DISABILITY RIGHTS Under state law, an interest in a military retirement plan is marital property subject to equitable distribution upon divorce to the extent it was earned during the marriage. The retired pay award is the former spouse's marital share of the servicemember's retired pay, and this sum is determined with guidance from the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act and the subsequent regulations promulgated by th


CourtListener opinion 11066538

pension: Maryland Rule 2-535(a). After thirty days has passed, the trial court may exercise revisory power only in the case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity. Maryland Rule 2-535(b). Fraud, mistake, or irregularity sufficient for a trial court to revise a constituted pension order must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Maryland courts have narrowly defined and strictly interpreted the terms fraud, mistake, and irregularity, in order to ensure the finality of judgments. The trial court erred by modifying the fraction used to compute the marital portion of the retired pay award because there was no finding of fraud


CourtListener opinion 11066538

ERISA: the member of the military retirement system switches from regular component to reserve component service. In re Marriage of Beckman, 800 P. 2d 1376, 1379-80 (Colo. App. 1990) (citing W. Troyan, "Procedures for Evaluating Retirement Entitlements Under Non–ERISA, Retirement Systems for Marriage Dissolution Actions," 3 J.P. McCahey, ed., Valuation & Distribution of Marital Property § 46.34(1) (1990)). Therefore, when the military retirement benefit is a result of the combination of active and reserve component service, points are the proper method for calculating the fraction. W. Troyan, "Procedures for Evaluati


CourtListener opinion 11066615

CourtListener opinion 11066615 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11066615 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 11066615


CourtListener opinion 11066615

QDRO: the dog, Bailey. • Husband shall receive the dog, Cooper. • Wife shall receive her Federal Employees Retirement System ("FERS") and Thrift Savings Plan ("TSP") retirement accounts, except that Husband shall receive $40,094.60 from Wife's TSP account, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). • Husband shall receive his 167th TRF Federal Credit Union ("167th TRFFCU") and West Virginia Teachers' Retirement System ("WVTRS") retirement accounts. • Husband shall receive exclusive ownership of the marital home and be solely responsible for all associated costs. • Husband was to provide Wife with items from a list of her personal belo


CourtListener opinion 11066615

retirement benefits: County's September 5, 2024, final divorce order. Respondent Terry Frick ("Husband") responded in support of the family court's decision.1 Wife did not file a reply. The issues on appeal are which party should receive the marital pets, division of the parties' retirement accounts, and Husband's alleged failure to return certain personal property items to Wife. This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51- 11-4 (2024). After considering the parties' arguments, the record on appeal, and the applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons


CourtListener opinion 11066615

domestic relations order: ailey. • Husband shall receive the dog, Cooper. • Wife shall receive her Federal Employees Retirement System ("FERS") and Thrift Savings Plan ("TSP") retirement accounts, except that Husband shall receive $40,094.60 from Wife's TSP account, via Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO"). • Husband shall receive his 167th TRF Federal Credit Union ("167th TRFFCU") and West Virginia Teachers' Retirement System ("WVTRS") retirement accounts. • Husband shall receive exclusive ownership of the marital home and be solely responsible for all associated costs. • Husband was to provide Wife with items from a list of her personal belo


CourtListener opinion 11073671

CourtListener opinion 11073671 Extracted reporter citation: 385 S.W.3d 337. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11073671 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 11073671


CourtListener opinion 11073671

QDRO: $35,744.52. The difference between them, $20,309, was awarded to Adrienne. This amount was offset by Adrienne's share of the student-loan debt, leaving $6,904.18. The court ordered that $6,904.18 would be assessed against Erik's 401k account by means of a QDRO. The court also found that Erik's payment of Adrienne's student loans during the marriage was a gift to the marriage. The attorney's fees incurred during the divorce case were evenly divided between the parties; however, the court ordered Adrienne to pay the attorney's fees for case number 43DR-18-13, the order-of-protection case, because it found tha


CourtListener opinion 11073671

retirement benefits: eals from the order of divorce alleging that the circuit court erred by (1) failing to determine which items of personal property were marital or nonmarital; (2) assigning half of Erik's preseparation student-loan debt to her; (3) "dividing the parties' retirement accounts equally, but in an inequitable manner"; (4) ordering Adrienne to pay Erik's attorney's fees regarding her request for an order of protection in a separate proceeding (case number 43DR-18-13); and (5) denying her request for production of Erik's medical records. We affirm in part and reverse in part. I. Relevant Facts In August 2016, Erik filed f


CourtListener opinion 11073671

401(k): nd Adrienne's was valued at $35,744.52. The difference between them, $20,309, was awarded to Adrienne. This amount was offset by Adrienne's share of the student-loan debt, leaving $6,904.18. The court ordered that $6,904.18 would be assessed against Erik's 401k account by means of a QDRO. The court also found that Erik's payment of Adrienne's student loans during the marriage was a gift to the marriage. The attorney's fees incurred during the divorce case were evenly divided between the parties; however, the court ordered Adrienne to pay the attorney's fees for case number 43DR-18-13, the order-of-protection


CourtListener opinion 11073773

CourtListener opinion 11073773 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11073773 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 11073773

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 11073773

retirement benefits: d be sold at public auction at a time and place of their choosing and the proceeds of the sale, after payments of costs and debts, would be equally divided between them. The court also equally divided the assets in the couple's whole-life insurance policy, retirement accounts, and bank accounts, including the money in the bank account that Amy established for her limited liability company, Amy Williams, PLLC. Finally, the circuit court's October 30 decree addressed some of the pending motions for contempt. First, the court denied Mark's petition to hold Amy in contempt. The circuit court found that Amy did not willfully vi


CourtListener opinion 11073773

domestic relations order: led on December 4, 2017, alleging that Mark disposed of personal property and failed to undergo a court-ordered mental evaluation; and finally, a petition filed February 9, 2019, alleging that Mark failed to pay child support, failed to prepare a qualified domestic relations order as the court directed in the October 30 decree, and otherwise engaged in "willful behavior." Accordingly, we dismiss the remaining issues in the appeal for lack of a final order. IV. Conclusion We affirm the custody order because the circuit court did not clearly err when it determined that it was in the best interests of the minor children to live w


CourtListener opinion 11073773

valuation/division: tody. See Carillo, 2019 Ark. App. 189, at 2, 575 S.W.3d at 152. Therefore, the circuit court's custody determination is affirmed. 12 B. Finality Mark also argues that the circuit court's decisions regarding supervised visitation, contempt, alimony, and property division constitute reversible error. We are without jurisdiction to address these arguments, however, because with the exception of the circuit court's order awarding custody, the decrees in this case are not final, appealable orders. Several of the contempt petitions that Amy filed are still pending, and the decrees entered on October 30, 2018, and February 11


CourtListener opinion 11074119

CourtListener opinion 11074119 Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11074119 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 11074119


CourtListener opinion 11074119

retirement benefits: z Albuquerque, NM Ofelia Infante-Garcia Mesilla, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Chief Judge. {1} Petitioner Bybee Ludwig-Vigil (Wife) appeals the district court's determination of her community interest in Respondent Luis Vigil's (Husband) retirement benefits and denial of her motion for reconsideration. On appeal, Wife argues the district court erroneously valued her share of Husband's retirement benefits based on the current cash-out value, rather than the present value of the future benefits as of the date of divorce. Additionally, Wife argues the district court erred by initially agreeing, then later refus


CourtListener opinion 11074119

pension: rt held an evidentiary hearing (the February hearing) to determine Wife's interest in Husband's retirement. The district court heard testimony from Husband's expert witness, Don Beasley, a certified public accountant, who testified as an expert in the area of pension valuation regarding Wife's interest in Husband's retirement. Mr. Beasley testified that he calculated the value of Husband's retirement benefits upon the date he would be eligible to retire—in 2027—to be $132,981.49. Mr. Beasley stated that his calculation was based on certain assumptions, including that (1) Husband would continue working until he became el


CourtListener opinion 11074119

domestic relations order: n of future benefits is not able to be calculated." Mr. Beasley advised that the "only options" he thought were available to the district court were to either use his initial valuation of Wife's interest in the amount of $8,321.28 or "[e]stablish [a qualified domestic relations order] with proceeds paid to [Wife] based upon known facts at the time of a triggering event." Mr. Beasley closed the report by recommending the first option as the "better, more equitable decision." Following the submission of Mr. Beasley's report, in a response to Husband's request for attorney and expert witness fees, Wife requested that the district court all


CourtListener opinion 11074119

valuation/division: e argues the district court erred in valuing Wife's interest in Husband's retirement benefits "based on the current cash-out value" rather than on the "present value of the future benefits on the date of divorce." Typically, a district court's distribution of community property is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Arnold v. Arnold, 2003-NMCA-114, ¶ 6, 134 N.M. 381, 77 P.3d 285. Here, because Wife's argument regarding the method of dividing Husband's retirement benefits presents a question of the district court's application of law to the facts, we review this issue de novo. See Gilmore v. Gilmore, 2010-NMCA-013, ¶ 21, 147 N.M. 625


CourtListener opinion 11074135

CourtListener opinion 11074135 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Heeter. Extracted reporter citation: 702 P.2d 353. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11074135 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 11074135

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 11074135

QDRO: nt. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Mark T. Sanchez, District Judge The Sawyers Law Group Melissa A. Sawyers Hobbs, NM for Appellee Glen L. Houston Hobbs, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Chief Judge. {1} Respondent appeals a qualified domestic relations order. This Court issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm, and Respondent has filed a memorandum to supplement his docketing statement, which we construe as a memorandum in opposition to our proposed disposition. Having duly considered that document, we are unpersuaded by Respondent's arguments and affirm the order of the district cour


CourtListener opinion 11074135

domestic relations order: L FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY Mark T. Sanchez, District Judge The Sawyers Law Group Melissa A. Sawyers Hobbs, NM for Appellee Glen L. Houston Hobbs, NM for Appellant MEMORANDUM OPINION HANISEE, Chief Judge. {1} Respondent appeals a qualified domestic relations order. This Court issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm, and Respondent has filed a memorandum to supplement his docketing statement, which we construe as a memorandum in opposition to our proposed disposition. Having duly considered that document, we are unpersuaded by Respondent's arguments and affirm the order of the district cour


CourtListener opinion 11074135

valuation/division: ee issues raised in the docketing statement. [MIO 3] {7} The first of those issues involved a "credit/set off" of $3,893.62 that Petitioner asserts should have been $6,393.62, based upon his payment of a property tax debt after the entry of an order dividing community property and debts. [MIO 1, 3] Although this Court has no duty to search the record for facts, Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72, we note that it appears Respondent presented some sort of evidence regarding the payment of that tax debt, and the district court entered an order reciting both that he would be credited for that payment in the form of a credit in the division of


CourtListener opinion 11076277

CourtListener opinion 11076277 Extracted reporter citation: 551 S.W.3d 394. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11076277 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 11076277


CourtListener opinion 11076277

QDRO: e. The decree also required Evelyn to provide the court with a statement showing the total amount of retirement benefits she had drawn since the divorce complaint was filed in January 2014 through the effective date of a qualified domestic-relations order (QDRO). Jim was awarded judgment for one-half this amount, but no amount of the judgment was stated. On March 14, 2016, the court entered a QDRO to effectuate the division of Evelyn's retirement benefits. The QDRO provided, in pertinent part, "The Defendant, James R. Chism, is entitled to one-half (1/2) of the Plaintiff, Evelyn Chism's (a.k.a. Mary E. Chism


CourtListener opinion 11076277

retirement benefits: ir first marriage ended in divorce in 1987. They remarried in 1993. During the marriage, Evelyn worked for the postal service. The parties were divorced for the second time pursuant to a decree entered on December 17, 2015. The circuit court found that any retirement benefits Evelyn had earned from her employment with the postal service were marital property and awarded Jim one-half of those benefits as well as any retirement benefits Evelyn had drawn during the pendency of the divorce. The decree also required Evelyn to provide the court with a statement showing the total amount of retirement benefits she had drawn since t


CourtListener opinion 11076318

CourtListener opinion 11076318 Extracted reporter citation: 479 S.W.3d 56. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11076318 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 11076318

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 11076318

QDRO: f is entitled to the maximum amount allowable of the Defendant's CSRS (Civil Service) Retirement Plan, including, but not limited to, survivor's benefits, earned as a result of his employment with the United States Postal Service and the Court will enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order effectuating the division thereof. 11. The Court finds that the Plaintiff and Defendant shall divide the Defendant's retirement with the United States Army Reserve. The Plaintiff shall name the children, Aaron and Kyle, as the sole beneficiaries of the retirement benefits accumulated and divided by this Order. The Court shall enter a Qualified Domest


CourtListener opinion 11076318

retirement benefits: cies to their original amounts at the time of divorce—$250,000 and $75,000; (2) to rename his children as his beneficiaries to his life insurance policies and to rename his ex-wife, appellee Shirlee Burris, as a survivor beneficiary to his civil service retirement plan, and (3) to assist in providing Shirlee one-half of his military retirement benefits that she was awarded in their divorce decree and returning to her the past-due amounts totaling $92,977.50. We affirm. Wayne and Shirlee divorced in 1999 after a twenty-six-year marriage. The relevant orders of the divorce decree are as follows: 9. The Court finds


CourtListener opinion 11076318

domestic relations order: led to the maximum amount allowable of the Defendant's CSRS (Civil Service) Retirement Plan, including, but not limited to, survivor's benefits, earned as a result of his employment with the United States Postal Service and the Court will enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order effectuating the division thereof. 11. The Court finds that the Plaintiff and Defendant shall divide the Defendant's retirement with the United States Army Reserve. The Plaintiff shall name the children, Aaron and Kyle, as the sole beneficiaries of the retirement benefits accumulated and divided by this Order. The Court shall enter a Qualified Domest


CourtListener opinion 11076318

survivor benefits: amounts totaling $92,977.50. We affirm. Wayne and Shirlee divorced in 1999 after a twenty-six-year marriage. The relevant orders of the divorce decree are as follows: 9. The Court finds that the Defendant shall maintain all life insurance policies and survivor benefits now in effect on his life and shall name the parties children, Aaron and Kyle, as the sole beneficiaries thereon, and shall provide written proof of the same to the Plaintiff. 10. . . . The Court finds that the Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed that the Plaintiff is entitled to the maximum amount allowable of the Defendant's CSRS (Civil Service) Ret


CourtListener opinion 11077606

CourtListener opinion 11077606 Extracted reporter citation: 257 S.W.3d 864. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11077606 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 11077606


CourtListener opinion 11077606

QDRO: unt of debt the parties still owed, having taken out multiple mortgages on the home. After the decree was entered, on October 8, 2015, he applied for a refinance loan with Arvest Bank, but his application was denied because the home's appraisal value 4 A Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) is an order that "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's retirement plan[.]" Ark. Code Ann. § 9-18-101(A) (Repl. 2020). 5 According to George, the $20,000 payment was intended as "[f]ifty per


CourtListener opinion 11077606

retirement benefits: ordered rebriefing due to deficiencies in Montie's abstract and brief. See Hobson v. Hobson, 2023 Ark. App. 482 (Hobson II). Montie has now filed a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum curing the deficiencies. 2 9. Montie will receive ownership of her retirement accounts. George will receive ownership of his Entergy retirement annuity. Montie will receive 53% of gross amount of the AEP retirement account valued as of the date of divorce. The circuit court approved the settlement and incorporated the parties' mediation agreement into the September 17 decree as follows: 8. That the parties' property and debts shall b


CourtListener opinion 11077606

pension: 5, 2016. Regarding the division of retirement assets, George testified that at the time of the mediation agreement, he was employed at American Electric Power Company (AEP) and participated in two AEP-sponsored retirement plans—a 401(k) savings plan and a pension plan. He said that these plans' benefits were held in separate accounts with separate balances. As best he could remember, at the time of the divorce, the account holding his pension benefits had a balance of approximately $76,000, and his 401(k) savings account had a balance of approximately $99,000. He testified that the parties' mediation negotiation


CourtListener opinion 11077606

401(k): nying her postdecree claims relating to a mediated property-settlement agreement.1 For reversal, she argues that the circuit court erred (1) in denying her claim for breach of contract; (2) in finding that the mediation agreement does not include appellee's 401(k) savings plan; (3) in finding that there was no fraud on the court; (4) in awarding appellee's 1 Appellant Montie Hobson is an Arkansas attorney representing herself in this appeal. In the proceedings below, she was represented by counsel at times and self- represented at other times. Appellee George Hobson did not file a responsive brief in this appeal.


CourtListener opinion 11077819

CourtListener opinion 11077819 Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11077819 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 11077819


CourtListener opinion 11077819

QDRO: ssets: (1) 100% ownership interest in 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043." In that section, Ms. Vaccarella was also awarded a portion of Mr. Vaccarella's pension/retirement plan with the Louisiana Carpenters Regional Council, to be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The judgment also addressed awards to Mr. Vaccarella, ordering that "Lisa Danflous Vaccarella should pay from her separate funds, 16,000.00 unto John Vaccarella, Jr. for his ½ share of the property located at 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043." Additionally, the consent judgment made provisions to handle different possible outcomes of unre


CourtListener opinion 11077819

retirement benefits: VACARELLA, JR. relinquishes all right, title and interest in and to the following assets: (1) 100% ownership interest in 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043." In that section, Ms. Vaccarella was also awarded a portion of Mr. Vaccarella's pension/retirement plan with the Louisiana Carpenters Regional Council, to be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The judgment also addressed awards to Mr. Vaccarella, ordering that "Lisa Danflous Vaccarella should pay from her separate funds, 16,000.00 unto John Vaccarella, Jr. for his ½ share of the property located at 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana


CourtListener opinion 11077819

pension: N JOSEPH VACARELLA, JR. relinquishes all right, title and interest in and to the following assets: (1) 100% ownership interest in 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043." In that section, Ms. Vaccarella was also awarded a portion of Mr. Vaccarella's pension/retirement plan with the Louisiana Carpenters Regional Council, to be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The judgment also addressed awards to Mr. Vaccarella, ordering that "Lisa Danflous Vaccarella should pay from her separate funds, 16,000.00 unto John Vaccarella, Jr. for his ½ share of the property located at 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalm


CourtListener opinion 11077819

domestic relations order: 100% ownership interest in 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043." In that section, Ms. Vaccarella was also awarded a portion of Mr. Vaccarella's pension/retirement plan with the Louisiana Carpenters Regional Council, to be preserved by a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The judgment also addressed awards to Mr. Vaccarella, ordering that "Lisa Danflous Vaccarella should pay from her separate funds, 16,000.00 unto John Vaccarella, Jr. for his ½ share of the property located at 3717 Gallo Drive, Chalmette, Louisiana 70043." Additionally, the consent judgment made provisions to handle different possible outcomes of unre


CourtListener opinion 11079132

CourtListener opinion 11079132 Extracted reporter citation: 216 So.3d 130. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11079132 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 11079132


CourtListener opinion 11079132

QDRO: pecifically stated that "Shannon Johnson will receive $198,000.00 from Frank Johnson's 401K, IRA or retirement account at Bayer US. Frank Johnson will execute all documents and waivers necessary to effectuate the payout." Ms. Johnson referenced the three Qualified Domestic Relations Orders ("QDRO") which had been issued by the trial court in connection with the settlement agreement. The first QDRO issued on November 12, 2021, established that $198,000.00 was to be paid to Ms. Johnson. The QDRO provided, in pertinent part: 9. The Alternate Payee's interest in the Plan shall be $198,000.00 of the Participant's total vested account balan


CourtListener opinion 11079132

retirement benefits: PELLANT AFFIRMED MAY 7, 2024 SCJ DLD DNA The defendant, Frank Johnson, appeals the trial court's judgment of April 25, 2023, finding him in contempt of court and awarding the plaintiff, Shannon Johnson, $39,544.99 as the balance due from Mr. Johnson's retirement account as provided for the parties' community property settlement. For the following reasons, we affirm. The parties were married on July 10, 1993, and subsequently divorced in November 2020. They executed a community property settlement agreement before a notary public on December 20, 2020. On December 30, 2020, the parties jointly filed a Petition to Part


CourtListener opinion 11079132

401(k): 2020, the parties jointly filed a Petition to Partition Community Property and Joint Motion to Homologate Community Property Partition Settlement Agreement. The settlement agreement stipulated that Ms. Johnson would receive $198,000.00 from Mr. Johnson's 401K plan with Bayer US Corporation. In November 2022, Ms. Johnson sought to withdraw her portion from the 401K. She received a payment on November 7, 2022, in the amount of $158,445.01, an amount which is $39,544.99 less than to which the parties agreed. Ms. Johnson subsequently filed a rule for contempt on September 7, 2022. The trial court conducted a


CourtListener opinion 11079132

alternate payee: ns Orders ("QDRO") which had been issued by the trial court in connection with the settlement agreement. The first QDRO issued on November 12, 2021, established that $198,000.00 was to be paid to Ms. Johnson. The QDRO provided, in pertinent part: 9. The Alternate Payee's interest in the Plan shall be $198,000.00 of the Participant's total vested account balance under the Plan as of the Valuation Date. . . 10. The Alternate Payee's award is entitled to earnings (defined as gains, losses, dividends and interest) from the Valuation Date to the date the award is segregated from the Participant's account. From and after


CourtListener opinion 11079415

CourtListener opinion 11079415 Extracted reporter citation: 171 So.3d 1097. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11079415 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 11079415

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 11079415

QDRO: 0.00. In October 2018, Ms. Brown filed another rule for contempt alleging that Mr. Caffey failed to meet his child support obligation since February 2008. While awaiting a hearing on Ms. Brown's rule for contempt, in November 2018, the trial court signed a qualified domestic relations order regarding the February 2008 judgment of contempt and child support arrearages. In April 2019, a hearing on Ms. Brown's October 2019 rule for contempt was held, and the trial court rendered judgment in May 2019, finding Mr. Caffey in contempt and made executory the child support arrearages of $791,250.00. In January 2023, Ms. Brown filed a rule to show


CourtListener opinion 11079415

domestic relations order: ctober 2018, Ms. Brown filed another rule for contempt alleging that Mr. Caffey failed to meet his child support obligation since February 2008. While awaiting a hearing on Ms. Brown's rule for contempt, in November 2018, the trial court signed a qualified domestic relations order regarding the February 2008 judgment of contempt and child support arrearages. In April 2019, a hearing on Ms. Brown's October 2019 rule for contempt was held, and the trial court rendered judgment in May 2019, finding Mr. Caffey in contempt and made executory the child support arrearages of $791,250.00. In January 2023, Ms. Brown filed a rule to show


CourtListener opinion 11079974

CourtListener opinion 11079974 Extracted reporter citation: 937 F. Supp. 2d 1048. Docket: No. 1. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11079974 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 11079974

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 11079974

QDRO: niv. in St. Louis, 960 F.3d 478, 482 (8th Cir. 2020) (distinguishing between administrative fees and investment-management fees). Here, Wells Fargo pays all the administrative expenses of the Plan, except for optional "Participant Elected Services," e.g., qualified domestic relations order services and special handling charges as well as operating expenses that participants are charged based on their investment decisions. (Hogg Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. K at 7; Decl. of Thomas O. Matula ¶ 3, Ex. 1 at 8, Nov. 22, 2024, Docket No. 47 ("Returns reflect deduction of fund operating expenses. Your Plan may also assess administrative fees which would redu


CourtListener opinion 11079974

retirement benefits: e is no error to correct. Cf. Parmer v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 3d 1293, 1301 (D. Minn. 2021) (finding Article III standing where plaintiff sufficiently alleged that defendant's maintenance of and investment decisions for the defined contribution retirement plan harmed plan participants); Schave v. CentraCare Health Sys., No. 22-1555, 2023 WL 1071606, at *2 (D. Minn. Jan. 27, 2023) (same). Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and will grant the motion to dismiss. Because Matula lacks Article III standing, the Court need not analyze whether Matula released his claims or failed to state a c


CourtListener opinion 11079974

ERISA: polis, MN 55402, for Defendants. Plaintiff Thomas O. Matula, Jr. brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Wells Fargo & Company 401(k) Plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Matula alleges that Defendants Wells Fargo & Company, Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of Wells Fargo, and Wells Fargo Employee Benefit Review Committee (collectively "Wells Fargo") illegally forfeited funds from employees' 401(k) retirement plan by reducing future employer matching contributions instead of alloca


CourtListener opinion 11079974

401(k): INKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, 90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55402, for Defendants. Plaintiff Thomas O. Matula, Jr. brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Wells Fargo & Company 401(k) Plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Matula alleges that Defendants Wells Fargo & Company, Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors of Wells Fargo, and Wells Fargo Employee Benefit Review Committee (collectively "Wells Fargo") illegally forfeited funds from employees' 401(k) retirement pla


CourtListener opinion 11080316

CourtListener opinion 11080316 Extracted case name: COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. RYAN. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11080316 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 11080316


CourtListener opinion 11080316

QDRO: 20} In Bulson, a client retained Bulson to represent her in a domestic- relations case. Bulson at ¶ 7. After the domestic-relations court issued an agreed judgment entry in January 2013, Bulson was tasked with preparing a qualified domestic-relations order ("QDRO") to transfer a portion of his client's former husband's 401(k) account to his client. Id. Bulson "did not take the necessary 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding [the client's] frequent inquiries and attempts to call him." Id. at ¶ 8. {¶ 21} We concluded that Bulson's misconduct violated Prof.C


CourtListener opinion 11080316

retirement benefits: arranted an actual suspension because he had previously received a fully stayed suspension in a prior disciplinary case. Id. at ¶ 17. {¶ 22} In Arkow, 2022-Ohio-3209, a client paid the attorney in November 2019 to obtain a QDRO to divide her former husband's retirement account. Id. at ¶ 5. Arkow falsely assured the client that he had submitted her information to a company that would prepare the QDRO and was waiting for it to be processed, delaying the matter for over a year. Id. at ¶ 6-7. Eventually, the client informed Arkow that she was going to file a grievance against him, after which Arkow attempted to mislead the client by


CourtListener opinion 11080316

401(k): domestic- relations case. Bulson at ¶ 7. After the domestic-relations court issued an agreed judgment entry in January 2013, Bulson was tasked with preparing a qualified domestic-relations order ("QDRO") to transfer a portion of his client's former husband's 401(k) account to his client. Id. Bulson "did not take the necessary 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO actions to finalize the QDRO for more than eight years notwithstanding [the client's] frequent inquiries and attempts to call him." Id. at ¶ 8. {¶ 21} We concluded that Bulson's misconduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3, 1.4(a)(2), 1.4(a)(3), and 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a law


CourtListener opinion 11080316

valuation/division: o Ryan's securing a divorce decree for Smith and did not include postdecree work, such as orders to divide marital property. {¶ 6} On October 13, 2017, the domestic-relations court issued the divorce decree. In the decree, the court awarded Smith half of the marital portion of her former husband's interest in his Ohio Public Employees Retirement ("OPERS") account. However, Smith could not access her share of that account until the domestic-relations court entered a division of property order ("DOPO") in the divorce action. {¶ 7} On September 5, 2018, Smith sent a text message to Ryan requesting that she finalize the DOPO. Rya


CourtListener opinion 11081383

CourtListener opinion 11081383 Extracted reporter citation: 516 F.3d 1095. Docket: 45 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11081383 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 11081383

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


CourtListener opinion 11081383

QDRO: class as: 3 All persons who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased Person who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class 4 Period, and any Alternate Payee of a Person subject to a QDRO [qualified domestic 5 relations order] who participated in the Plan at any time during the Class Period. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the current and former members of the John Muir Health 6 Retirement Committee during the Class Period. 7 Settlement § 1.46. Class certification requires that a plaintiff satisfy Rule 23(a)'s four 8 requirement


CourtListener opinion 11081383

retirement benefits: As discussed below, each of these factors is met. 19 a. Adequate Representation 20 First, the Court must determine whether the class representatives and class counsel have 21 adequately represented the class. Counsel has litigated dozens of cases involving retirement plans, 22 including cases involving ERISA violations by healthcare institutions, Secunda Decl. ¶¶ 14-15, 23 demonstrating experience and competence. This is an "indication that Plaintiff[] ha[s] adequately 24 represented the class." Cottle v. Plaid Inc., 340 F.R.D. 356, 376 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (citing In re 25 Pac. Enters. Sec. Litig., 47 F.3d 373, 378 (9th Cir


CourtListener opinion 11081383

pension: ectly by the Plan fiduciaries, whether Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan, 21 and whether the Plan suffered losses from the fiduciary breaches – are common to all class 22 members. See Reyes v. Bakery & Confectionery Union & Indus. Int'l Pension Fund, No. 14-CV- 23 05596-JST, 2015 WL 5569462, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2015) (finding commonality where 24 "Plaintiffs' challenge . . . entail[ed] consideration of questions applicable to all members of the 25 class as a group, and d[id] not require an inquiry into the actions and circumstances of individual 26 plan participants."). Thus, Nado has es


CourtListener opinion 11081383

ERISA: ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT 10 JOHN MUIR HEALTH, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 45 Defendants. 11 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement in 14 this ERISA putative class action. ECF 46. Because the motion was suitable for decision without 15 oral argument, the Court vacated the motion hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1. 16 Having reviewed the motion and the arguments made therein, as well as the relevant legal 17 authority, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the following reasons. 18 I.


CourtListener opinion 11085334

CourtListener opinion 11085334 Extracted case name: KIM DIXON SMITH v. KEVIN JAY SMITH. Extracted reporter citation: 453 U.S. 210. Docket: 03-C-97-009400 REPORTED. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11085334 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 11085334

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 11085334

QDRO: aryland Rule 2-535. Id. at 678-79. Mr. Leadroot, following his divorce, had purchased back a period of his retirement contribution, which he had cashed in to use for work-related moving expenses during his marriage to Ms. Leadroot. Id. at 675. The original qualified domestic relations order in Leadroot included a fractional equation that used the months of marriage for the numerator and total months of service for the denominator. Id. at 676-77. The trial court in Leadroot thus edited the fraction to include the redeemed months for the denominator but did not add back the time to the numerator. 11 Id. The trial court intended for this de


CourtListener opinion 11085334

retirement benefits: ompute the marital portion of the retired pay award because there was no finding of fraud, mistake, or irregularity in the 1999 constituted pension order. DIVORCE – MILITARY RETIREMENT – PENSION OR DISABILITY RIGHTS Under state law, an interest in a military retirement plan is marital property subject to equitable distribution upon divorce to the extent it was earned during the marriage. The retired pay award is the former spouse's marital share of the servicemember's retired pay, and this sum is determined with guidance from the Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act and the subsequent regulations promulgated by th


CourtListener opinion 11085334

pension: Maryland Rule 2-535(a). After thirty days has passed, the trial court may exercise revisory power only in the case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity. Maryland Rule 2-535(b). Fraud, mistake, or irregularity sufficient for a trial court to revise a constituted pension order must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Maryland courts have narrowly defined and strictly interpreted the terms fraud, mistake, and irregularity, in order to ensure the finality of judgments. The trial court erred by modifying the fraction used to compute the marital portion of the retired pay award because there was no finding of fraud


CourtListener opinion 11085334

ERISA: the member of the military retirement system switches from regular component to reserve component service. In re Marriage of Beckman, 800 P. 2d 1376, 1379-80 (Colo. App. 1990) (citing W. Troyan, "Procedures for Evaluating Retirement Entitlements Under Non–ERISA, Retirement Systems for Marriage Dissolution Actions," 3 J.P. McCahey, ed., Valuation & Distribution of Marital Property § 46.34(1) (1990)). Therefore, when the military retirement benefit is a result of the combination of active and reserve component service, points are the proper method for calculating the fraction. W. Troyan, "Procedures for Evaluati


CourtListener opinion 11089246

CourtListener opinion 11089246 Docket: 30331 Appellee : : Trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11089246 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 11089246


CourtListener opinion 11089246

QDRO: IS, JUDGE -2- [[Applied Signature 3]] MARY K. HUFFMAN, JUDGE -3- OPINION MONTGOMERY C.A. No. 30331 JAY M. LOPEZ & CHARLYNE L. ADAMS, Attorneys for Appellant CRAIG M. SAMS, Attorney for Appellee LEWIS, J. {¶ 1} Appellant Douglas Stueve appeals from a qualified domestic relations order issued by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. I. Course of Proceedings {¶ 2} On March 8, 2023, Appellee Sarah S. Stueve filed a complaint for divorce. According to the complaint, she married Douglas on April 20, 2002, and they had two childr


CourtListener opinion 11089246

retirement benefits: the division of their assets and liabilities was fair and equitable and that the terms of the decree were in the best interest of the children. No provisions of the decree were read into the record, and neither party testified about how they intended their retirement accounts to be divided. {¶ 7} On September 2, 2024, the trial court entered a final judgment and decree of divorce. Sarah was named the legal custodian and residential parent of the children. "SECTION VIII: DIVISION OF PROPERTY" of the divorce decree stated, in relevant part: The parties stipulate that the date of division of assets shall be January 1, 2023


CourtListener opinion 11089246

pension: ate that the date of division of assets shall be January 1, 2023, unless specifically provided otherwise herein. All tangible and intangible personal property belonging to the parties shall be divided between them as follows: ... D. Retirement Plans/Pension Benefits: Husband owns a 401(k) account through Fidelity with an approximate -5- balance of $1,138,666.32 as of January 1, 2023. Wife owns a Fidelity account consisting of a 401(k) and Rollover IRA with an approximate balance of $657,579 as of September 30, 2022. All retirement is marital in nature. The marital portion shall be defined as the time


CourtListener opinion 11089246

401(k): sets shall be January 1, 2023, unless specifically provided otherwise herein. All tangible and intangible personal property belonging to the parties shall be divided between them as follows: ... D. Retirement Plans/Pension Benefits: Husband owns a 401(k) account through Fidelity with an approximate -5- balance of $1,138,666.32 as of January 1, 2023. Wife owns a Fidelity account consisting of a 401(k) and Rollover IRA with an approximate balance of $657,579 as of September 30, 2022. All retirement is marital in nature. The marital portion shall be defined as the time from April 20, 2002 (Date of Ma


CourtListener opinion 11093474

CourtListener opinion 11093474 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Alarcon. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11093474 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 11093474


CourtListener opinion 11093474

retirement benefits: udicial Retirement System II (JRS II). (Gov. Code, § 75500 et seq.)1 On December 8, 2005, a status-only judgment of dissolution was filed that included an order reserving jurisdiction over the division of the parties' community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. Fourteen years later, on December 12, 2019, Hiramoto filed a request for a domestic relations order dividing the community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. The request included a proposed order that divided the community interest as follows pursuant to section 75551: (1) 50 percent of the monetary credits attributed to Hiramoto's service f


CourtListener opinion 11093474

pension: te accounts as required by Family Code section 2610, subdivision (a); (3) an equal division of his community property interest in the JRS II plan under Family Code section 2610, subdivision (a) requires that he receive the present value of Hiramoto's "matured pension benefits;" and (4) Hiramoto violated her spousal fiduciary duty with respect to the division of community property. For the reasons stated below, we are not convinced by MacMaster's contentions on appeal and we will affirm the judgment.2 I. THE JUDICIAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM A. JRS I The Judges Retirement Law (JRS I) was enacted in 1978 and became effective


CourtListener opinion 11093474

domestic relations order: tatus-only judgment of dissolution was filed that included an order reserving jurisdiction over the division of the parties' community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. Fourteen years later, on December 12, 2019, Hiramoto filed a request for a domestic relations order dividing the community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. The request included a proposed order that divided the community interest as follows pursuant to section 75551: (1) 50 percent of the monetary credits attributed to Hiramoto's service from the date of marriage to the date of separation would be awarded to MacMaster as the nonmember; (2)


CourtListener opinion 11093474

valuation/division: uperior Court and became a member of the Judicial Retirement System II (JRS II). (Gov. Code, § 75500 et seq.)1 On December 8, 2005, a status-only judgment of dissolution was filed that included an order reserving jurisdiction over the division of the parties' community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. Fourteen years later, on December 12, 2019, Hiramoto filed a request for a domestic relations order dividing the community property interest in the JRS II retirement plan. The request included a proposed order that divided the community interest as follows pursuant to section 75551: (1) 50 percent of the monetary cre


CourtListener opinion 11095195

CourtListener opinion 11095195 Extracted case name: COA THOMAS KEVIN BRASWELL APPELLANT v. LADONNA JO BRASWELL APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT. Extracted reporter citation: 791 So.2d 220. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11095195 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 11095195


CourtListener opinion 11095195

QDRO: support, but nothing in alimony. He made no further payments in 2018. In 2019, he made no alimony payments and only one child-support payment. Through July 2020, he paid a total of $4,000 in child support. ¶13. On June 2, 2020, the chancery court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that affirmatively established Ladonna's right to $200,000 of Kevin's PERS deferred 3 In 2018, gross income for the clinic as a whole was $607,278. 5 compensation benefits plan. It further ordered the Plan Administrator to establish a separate account for Ladonna and transfer Ladonna's $200,000 share to that account. ¶14. The chancery court heard t


CourtListener opinion 11095195

retirement benefits: lement agreement included Kevin's obligations to transfer ownership of the family home to Ladonna; pay Ladonna $100,000 upon the entry of divorce; pay for the minor child's college education; and that Ladonna receive $200,000 of Kevin's $400,000 deferred PERS retirement account when it became accessible. 2 Ladonna testified that she went to college for less than two years, and that she had worked at a bank doing proofing "but that was thirty years ago." She had applied for work at several banks and as a teacher's assistant without success. She sought no other vocational training. 2 dentist with whom he shared an office buildi


CourtListener opinion 11095195

domestic relations order: ut nothing in alimony. He made no further payments in 2018. In 2019, he made no alimony payments and only one child-support payment. Through July 2020, he paid a total of $4,000 in child support. ¶13. On June 2, 2020, the chancery court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that affirmatively established Ladonna's right to $200,000 of Kevin's PERS deferred 3 In 2018, gross income for the clinic as a whole was $607,278. 5 compensation benefits plan. It further ordered the Plan Administrator to establish a separate account for Ladonna and transfer Ladonna's $200,000 share to that account. ¶14. The chancery court heard t


CourtListener opinion 11096166

CourtListener opinion 11096166 Extracted case name: CROSS-APPELLEE v. ALISON HOLLISTER OSING APPELLEE. Docket: of a different chancellor. Following a hearing on J. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11096166 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 11096166

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 11096166

QDRO: gment. On June 28, 2022, the chancellor entered another final judgment that addressed the parties' various Rule 59 motions. The chancellor's June 28, 2022 final judgment incorporated a paragraph from his earlier judgment that had directed Fred to present a qualified domestic relations order to 2 Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994). 3 Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993). 5 allow Alison to receive one-half of the amount in his retirement account. Unless Fred could "produce evidence that a different amount exists as of [the date of the parties' divorce on] May 26, 2022[,]" the chancellor ordered


CourtListener opinion 11096166

retirement benefits: rce. Both parties filed separate motions to amend or alter the judgment under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 59. In his final judgment addressing the parties' Rule 59 motions, the chancellor reaffirmed his prior ruling regarding the division of Fred's retirement account and denied all other requested relief. ¶2. On appeal, Fred argues the chancellor erred (1) by denying his motion to withdraw his consent to an irreconcilable-differences divorce; (2) in dividing the marital estate; and (3) by awarding Alison permanent alimony. On cross-appeal, Alison asserts that the chancellor erred by failing to require Fred to pay fo


CourtListener opinion 11096166

pension: ¶7. On January 22, 2021, the parties consented to an irreconcilable-differences divorce and agreed to submit for the chancellor's determination the remaining issues of "[a]limony, child support, visitation, division of assets and debts to include retirement/pension[, a]ttorney[']s fees[,] and back child support to the date . . . the complaint was filed." The parties' filing acknowledged their understanding that their consent to the irreconcilable- differences divorce could "not be withdrawn . . . without leave of the Court after the Court ha[d] commenced any proceeding, including the hearing of any motion or other


CourtListener opinion 11096166

domestic relations order: June 28, 2022, the chancellor entered another final judgment that addressed the parties' various Rule 59 motions. The chancellor's June 28, 2022 final judgment incorporated a paragraph from his earlier judgment that had directed Fred to present a qualified domestic relations order to 2 Ferguson v. Ferguson, 639 So. 2d 921, 928 (Miss. 1994). 3 Armstrong v. Armstrong, 618 So. 2d 1278, 1280 (Miss. 1993). 5 allow Alison to receive one-half of the amount in his retirement account. Unless Fred could "produce evidence that a different amount exists as of [the date of the parties' divorce on] May 26, 2022[,]" the chancellor ordered


CourtListener opinion 11096720

CourtListener opinion 11096720 Extracted reporter citation: 290 S.W.3d 748. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11096720 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 11096720


CourtListener opinion 11096720

QDRO: District No. 9 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Pension Plan. At the time of the divorce, he was employed at Firestone. 2 granted Wife's motion and on June 19, 2014, entered a corresponding Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO).3 Over six years later, on July 17, 2020, Husband moved to set aside the 2014 Order alleging that the trial court lacked "proper jurisdiction" to enter the order and therefore the order was invalid.4 On August 31, 2020, the court denied Husband's motion because Husband consented to the 2014 Order by executing the parties' joint affidavit in support of


CourtListener opinion 11096720

pension: ON Introduction In this family court matter, appellant James Kalish (Husband) seeks to set aside a 2014 order nunc pro tunc (the 2014 Order), in which the trial court purported to correct the parties' March 2013 consent judgment's treatment of Husband's pension by granting respondent Gina Kalish (Wife) the entire pension instead of just half as the 2013 judgment had ordered. In her motion seeking the 2014 Order, Wife alleged that the 2013 judgment awarding each party half of the pension was a mere clerical error because the parties intended that she receive the entire pension.1 In support of this assertion, W


CourtListener opinion 11096720

alternate payee: (Mo. App. S.D. 1994). A court abuses its discretion when its judgment or order is against the logic of the circumstances, is arbitrary and unreasonable, and indicates a lack of careful consideration. Id. 3 A QDRO "creates or recognizes the existence of an alternate payee's right to receive all or a portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a pension plan." Joyner v. Joyner, 460 S.W.3d 467, 471 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015). 4 Husband did not specifically cite to Rule 74.06(b) in his motion to set aside the 2014 Order or his brief. However, based on the language used in the motion, we conclude that Husband


CourtListener opinion 11096720

survivor benefits: rriage.2 Over a year later, on April 25, 2014, Wife asked the court by way of an order nunc pro tunc to correct the March 2013 judgment to reflect the parties' intent that Wife receive the entirety of Husband's pension along with the plan's pre-retirement survivor benefits. Wife submitted the motion with the parties' joint affidavit stating as much. On May 2, 2014, the court 2 Husband was a participant in the District No. 9 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Pension Plan. At the time of the divorce, he was employed at Firestone. 2 granted Wife's motion and on June 19, 2014, entered a correspo


CourtListener opinion 11097676

CourtListener opinion 11097676 Extracted reporter citation: 608 S.W.2d 405. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11097676 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 11097676


CourtListener opinion 11097676

QDRO: uant to qualified transfer to an IRA or other qualified plan account in [wife]'s name and at the financial institution determined by [wife]. In the event of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order is necessary, the [c]ourt shall retain jurisdiction to enter a QDRO to accomplish the intent of this provision[.] [Husband] will pay any fees associated with the division and transfer of the property equalization[.] This transfer shall occur within [thirty] 30 days of the date of dissolution of marriage. (Emphasis added). In September 2020, the trial court entered a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) 1 The ju


CourtListener opinion 11097676

retirement benefits: and in the settlement agreement, which are not at issue in this appeal. 2 the intent of which was to pay out the equalization payment to wife. The QDRO stated that wife was entitled to $180,000.00 of husband's vested accrued benefits under his Nationwide Retirement Plan2 as of July 27, 2020. The QDRO, however, did not indicate that a transfer of these funds was to occur within thirty days. Further, the Nationwide Retirement Plan specified in the QDRO was a defined-benefit plan,3 meaning a monthly benefit retirement plan subject to taxes and penalties if withdrawn before age fifty-nine and a half, in this case in October


CourtListener opinion 11097676

pension: nswer out of time, husband filed his answer and counter-petition in December 2019. As part of the dissolution action, husband filed his statement of marital and non-marital assets and debts, listing property including his Charles Schwab securities account, pension plan, and his "Fidelity 401k." In July 2020, wife and husband reached a settlement and filed a joint affidavit requesting dissolution with an attached marital separation and property settlement agreement, and the case was removed from the trial court's docket. On July 27, 2020, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution. The judgment of dissolu


CourtListener opinion 11097676

401(k): d his answer and counter-petition in December 2019. As part of the dissolution action, husband filed his statement of marital and non-marital assets and debts, listing property including his Charles Schwab securities account, pension plan, and his "Fidelity 401k." In July 2020, wife and husband reached a settlement and filed a joint affidavit requesting dissolution with an attached marital separation and property settlement agreement, and the case was removed from the trial court's docket. On July 27, 2020, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution. The judgment of dissolution divided the marital prop


CourtListener opinion 11097814

CourtListener opinion 11097814 Extracted case name: In re Marriage of Hatch. Citation: domestic relations order. Extracted reporter citation: domestic relations order. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11097814 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 11097814


CourtListener opinion 11097814

QDRO: orce charging order against judgment debtor's interest in various limited partnerships and limited liability companies); Roberts v. Roberts, 432 S.W.3d 789, 792 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (circuit court judgment adopting qualified domestic relations order or "QDRO" in order to implement dissolution decree's 17 division of retirement benefits); McLean, 369 S.W.3d at 802-03 (despite finality of judgment resolving class action, circuit court had inherent authority to award $462,000 in attorney's fees as a sanction for "bad faith actions taken [by defendant] subsequent to the entry of the judgment" during the proces


CourtListener opinion 11097814

retirement benefits: imited partnerships and limited liability companies); Roberts v. Roberts, 432 S.W.3d 789, 792 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (circuit court judgment adopting qualified domestic relations order or "QDRO" in order to implement dissolution decree's 17 division of retirement benefits); McLean, 369 S.W.3d at 802-03 (despite finality of judgment resolving class action, circuit court had inherent authority to award $462,000 in attorney's fees as a sanction for "bad faith actions taken [by defendant] subsequent to the entry of the judgment" during the processing of class members' individual claims); Chaney v. Gray, 898 S.W.2d 577, 583 (M


CourtListener opinion 11097814

domestic relations order: r appointing receiver to enforce charging order against judgment debtor's interest in various limited partnerships and limited liability companies); Roberts v. Roberts, 432 S.W.3d 789, 792 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (circuit court judgment adopting qualified domestic relations order or "QDRO" in order to implement dissolution decree's 17 division of retirement benefits); McLean, 369 S.W.3d at 802-03 (despite finality of judgment resolving class action, circuit court had inherent authority to award $462,000 in attorney's fees as a sanction for "bad faith actions taken [by defendant] subsequent to the entry of the judgment" during t


CourtListener opinion 11097814

valuation/division: gment. 838 S.W.2d at 92. For other examples illustrating the range of post-judgment rulings which have been treated as "special orders after final judgment," see, e.g., Wilson v. Wilson, 640 S.W.3d 136, 140 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (ordering seeking to enforce property division in earlier dissolution decree was a "special order after final judgment"); St. Louis Bank v. Kohn, 517 S.W.3d 666, 672 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (post-judgment order appointing receiver to enforce charging order against judgment debtor's interest in various limited partnerships and limited liability companies); Roberts v. Roberts, 432 S.W.3d 789, 792 n.1 (Mo.


CourtListener opinion 11099190

CourtListener opinion 11099190 Extracted case name: In re Estate of Petelle. Extracted reporter citation: 386 F.3d 1306. Docket: 87370-9-I/4 The trial. Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 11099190 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 11099190

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 11099190

QDRO: THE STATE OF WASHINGTON In re the Marriage of: No. 87370-9-I LINGJUN STEVE HOU, DIVISION ONE Respondent, and UNPUBLISHED OPINION JIE YAO HOU, Appellant. SMITH, J. — An arbitrator directed Jie Hou to prepare a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) splitting her Public Employees' Retirement System Plan 2 (PERS 2) account with her ex-spouse, Steve Hou. In this appeal, Jie1 challenges the trial court's orders confirming the arbitrator's award, denying Jie's motion to vacate the award, entering a QDRO pursuant to the award, and awarding attorney fees to Steve. She also challenges the trial court's d


CourtListener opinion 11099190

retirement benefits: eiving payments if Jie died before he did. By contrast, under a split-type QDRO, Steve could begin receiving payments once he reached retirement age, see WAC 415-02-520(3)(i), and "[w]hen [Jie] or [Steve] dies, there will be no impact to the other person's retirement account because the accounts are independent from one another." WAC 415-02- 520(3)(h). Steve represented that Jie was insisting on an interest-type QDRO, and he requested that the matter be submitted to binding arbitration. 3 No. 87370-9-I/4 The trial court determined that "this is a dispute that clearly falls within the broad language of the binding arbit